In a recent press conference in
Islamabad, the Chairman of PTI Imran Khan coined the phrase “democratic
dictatorship.” The phrase was pertaining to the current electoral system and
political party set up in Pakistan. The phrase struck a chord with me as it is
one I myself have been using for a long time to describe the Electoral
Commission set up, electoral system governance vis-a-vis the recent Genera
Election results which were held on 11 May 2013 to elect the members of the 14th
National Assembly and the four provincial assemblies of Punjab, Sindh,
Baluchistan and Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa. Elections were held in all four provinces of
Pakistan, Islamabad’s federal capital territory and the Federally Administered
Tribal Areas. The remaining two territories of Pakistan, Azad Kashmir and Gilgit
Baltistan, were ineligible to vote due to their disputed status.
The 2013 General Election results were tarnished with allegations of systematic
vote rigging, corruption and malpractice. According to the Electoral Commission
of Pakistan, 86.9 million Pakistanis were registered to vote. Overall, the voter
turn-out was 55.02%; the highest since 1970 and 1977 which was on a par with
voter turn outs in many Western democracies.
Before the votes had been fully counted, many news channels in Pakistan were
announcing that PML (N) had emerged as the largest party. In fact, PML (N) had
fell short of acquiring a majority and needed the support of 19 independent
candidates who transferred their allegiance to PML-(N) to secure the majority
needed to form a government. The results of the election were that PML-(N)
acquired 166 seats, Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) 42 seats and Pakistan
Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) 35 seats. The remaining 99 seats were acquired by multiple
smaller and fringe parties. The results did shock the vast majority of
Pakistanis as there was a huge popularity surge and drive “tsunami” amongst the
youth and many media news channels that suggested that PTI would run PML-(N)
very close in terms of winning the election.
The allegations of electoral malpractice, vote rigging and favouritism led to
nationwide anti-government marches in 2014 orchestrated in particular by the
leader of PTI -Imran Khan and Pakistan Awamee Tehreek (PAT) Dr. Tahir ul Qadri
who wished to orchestrate root and branch reforms of the national and provincial
assemblies set up, devolution of powers, reaffirming the tenets of the
constitution of Pakistan and prime on their wish list was the quest for
electoral reforms. With the threat of political and social unrest high on the
horizon where the two cited leaders were demanding the resignations of the
sitting Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and Governor of Punjab Shabaz Shareef, their
wishes did not come to fruition as the sitting government through astute track 2
diplomacy vis-à-vis the Pakistan Army and power brokers in America were able to
stifle any threat of the sitting government being deposed. The anti-government
demonstrations which were primarily centred in Islamabad came to an abrupt holt
as a result of the tragic Peshawar Attack by militants on an Army Public School
on 16 December 2014 claiming the lives of 141 innocent victims.
As a result of the anti-government demonstrations, an Inquiry Commission was set
up to investigate the PTI allegations that the 2013 elections were rigged and
hence the sitting PM Nawaz Sharif does not have the constitutional legitimacy to
be the leader of the nation. The Terms of Reference (TOR) for the Inquiry
Commission investigation were not framed in a way to result in a dramatic change
of the status quo if it was concluded that the elections were rigged due to the
political brokering between the representatives of PTI and PML (N) before the
commission was set up.
The three-judge Inquiry Commission rejected PTI allegations of organised rigging
during the elections. In its 237-page report, the commission stated that despite
some lapses in the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) “THE 2013 general
elections were in large part organised and conducted fairly and in accordance
with the law.”
Whilst acknowledging that the PTI were not unjustified in their demands to have
an independent body inquire into allegations and suspicions regarding the 2013
general elections, the commission concluded that any plan or design to
manipulate or influence the election systematically could not be proven by any
of the parties to the proceedings and nor was this evident from the evidences
produced before the commission. The commission also rebutted allegations that
there was a plan/ design to influence the outcome of the elections. The
commission concluded by stating that:
“When the entire contest of the elections are considered along with the meaning
of overall basis, despite some lapses by the ECP it cannot be said on the
evidence before the commission that on an overall basis, the elections were not
a true and fair reflection of the mandate given by the electorate” TOR 3 (C)
Political analysts would argue that in a ripe democracy like Pakistan that has
grappled with periods of civil and military rule, one cannot expect elections to
be squeaky clean and an element of malpractice will always be there. Others
would argue that the conclusions reached by the commission demonstrates that
there were lapses and malpractice in operation during the 2013 general elections
and this is simply not acceptable. The notion that whether the malpractice was
sufficient to sway the outcome of the overall result is academic as the
principle of malpractice was proven to be in operation during the 2013 general
election and whether this is “minimal” or “overall” is redundant as the nation
cannot afford to have an Election Commission set up, structure and governance
model that is willing to malpractice so long as it does not fit the
definition of “overall” malpractice to sway the final result.
Dictators or Perceptions
Conventionally, within the Pakistani political set up and media discourse the
concept of ruling by dictatorship is ascribed to a ruler who is leading the
military and at times military/ civilian strata all in one combined office.
Hence, the phrase “military dictators” is ascribed to the tenure of Zia ul Haq
(1977-1988) and more recently Pervez Musharraf (1999-2001-Chairman Joints Chiefs
and Chief of Army Staff- 2002-2002-President of Pakistan) who both ruled
Pakistan by assuming their legitimacy within the military hierarchy via the
title of Army Chief and thereafter getting it rubber stamped or approved via the
wider constitutional options that are available to endorse their remaining
tenure as heads of state.
The perception of dictatorial rule via the auspices of the Pakistan Army Chief
is a very pertinent one. All be it, when Pervez Musharraf was in office as Army
Chief and later President too, he would argue that he embarked on a reform
programme of “enlightened moderation” that laid the foundations for Pakistan to
open up via a democratic pathway across many platforms such as the expansion of
the media in Pakistan from the conventional state backed PTV to the hundreds of
private channels that are available now to challenge and or support the sitting
government’s positions. There were opportunities for regular question and answer
sessions with the media and senior civic society-stakeholders on current
policies which would all tie in to the values that are cherished in a democratic
society. Despite the initiatives that Pervez Musharraf may have embarked on to
open up Pakistan at an economic and political level, initially at the inception
of his tenure in office via what is coined as a military coup in 1999; Pakistan
had been removed from the Commonwealth of Nations as the impression in the West
was the he is a military dictator. Later during his reign, Pervez Musharraf was
able to regain the confidence of the international community by Pakistan being
re-instated as part of the Commonwealth of nations.
Democrats or Dictators- the two Sharif’s
Coming to the current constitutional and political set up in Pakistan, the
current Chief of Army Staff General Raheel Sharif has immense popularity amongst
the masses in particular for his robust campaign to stifle out terrorist groups
and their co-conspirators within Pakistan via initiatives such as the national
accountability drive and military campaigns in Pakistan’s tribal areas and
regional provinces. Whereas, PM Nawaz Sharif who has astutely been navigating
his way towards completing what would be a record two consecutive full
parliamentary civilian rule terms for Pakistan with Asif Zardari completing the
first full term under the PPP, PM Nawaz Sharif’s popularity and esteem amongst
the masses is not held in the same regard as General Raheel Sharif. He is
perceived to be an autocratic leader in the way he leads his party and the
nation too and his legacy in terms of civil-military relations up until now has
not been a good one.
Although ruling a nation, is not in essence about a popularity contest all be it
in the current 24/7 media focus it helps, it is about placing the interest of
the nation and its people first above individual ulterior aspirations and hence
ascribing to the true Burkean representative democracy model.
The current Pakistan Election Commission and governance set up to run national
elections demands fundamental reform to stifle the now proven allegations of
parties like PTI that electoral malpractices are ripe. The deficiencies and
inefficiencies of bodies like the Election Commission allows room for
influential political and economic power brokers to apply leverage to sway
outcomes and results which is not constitutionally acceptable.
Pakistan’s neighbour India, acquired independence in the same year 1947 but it’s
Election Commission is not maligned to the level the Pakistani Election
Commission is. Until there is a root and branch reform of Pakistan’s Election
Commission and governance of elections so that it operates based on the core
tenets of the Pakistan constitution, the assertion that Imran Khan made
“democratic dictators” will for many remain vindicated. The notion that the
current set up is not giving you democracy in the true form, but facilitating a
mechanism that provides a pseudo-democratic apparatus which allows room for key
power brokers to then manipulate, orchestrate via its structures to back a
preferred candidate/ party and achieve a desired outcome to suite and appease
the power brokers and or political masters domestically and internationally. For
this assertion to be removed, Pakistan will have to move on the pathway of
electoral reform and transparency. For this to transpire, it requires immense
political and social will from the key stakeholders and until now it has been
lacking or stifled before such a campaign can raise its head above the political
parapet.
By Kaleem Hussain
The writer has a background in law, economics & government studies from Warwick
University & Warwick Business School, UK. He is a Young Diplomats Forum Member &
frequently writes on contemporary domestic and International affairs. He tweets
@KaleemHussain20.