Reforming electoral system

The aura of electoral process is all pervasive and it has become a symbol of governance that is proper and lawful. Electoral process is the mechanism through which peaceful and consensual transfer of political power takes place in a democratic polity.

The concept and practice is now so deep rooted that even authoritarian regimes are constrained to hold elections of some kind to legitimise their hold on power. The most important aspect of this process is the transparency associated with it and it is here that variations are noted that ultimately determine the legitimacy of governance.

As with all exercises associated with power the electoral process is also not free from manipulation. The predominantly subjective nature of electoral process further complicates the matter.

The intense pull of this subject has resulted in a plethora of electoral reform proposals forwarded by countless organisations, specialists, commentators and wide array of public.

Since this is a public welfare measure affecting all and sundry therefore a vast input from a cross section of citizenry should always be encouraged along with wide publicity accorded to this exercise.

It is now the norm that considers an electoral system as the only process that determines allocation of parliamentary seats commensurate with voting strength of a party. It is pointed out that political parties, as the vehicles of democratic political power, are driven to governance through an election mechanism.

It is essential therefore to align the mechanism of political composition with the nuances of electoral mechanism and this is where the crucial aspect of electoral reforms lays it emphasis.

In this context, it is imperative to deliberate upon genetic composition, underlying assumptions, inherent limitations and supple variations of electoral reforms in Pakistan so that they become all encompassing and considered legitimate by citizenry.

They should be aimed to assist an institutionalised democratic system by consolidating the right to rule.

More importantly, the electoral process should be considered a continuous national exercise irrespective of the fact that its occurrence is periodic. One of its essential aims should be to improve quality and equality of representation.

It should also address manageability of party system since it could not solely be done through legislative measures construed widely to favour political class only. The electoral reform should clearly draw lines between the roles played by executive and judicial sectors.

The fragility of Pakistan’s democracy is unique even in nascent democracies. It is due to an invisible arbitrary force that holds overriding clout in political domain and, to obtain desired results, massively intervenes in electoral process.

The intervention is aggravated by the fact that the perception and goals of this arbitrary force are in direct opposition to democratic ideals and practice.

The teething troubles restrained Pakistan from holding nationwide elections based on universal suffrage for the first 23 years of its existence despite being created through an electoral process till democratic order was folded by arbitrary forces who completely upturned the parliamentary practice adhered to by founding fathers to achieve a separate state.

The worst effect of the lengthening shadows of arbitrary rule was the initiative wrested by the establishment to plan, organise and manipulate every election exercise in Pakistan.

Therefore, contrary to electoral reform in established democracies where people value traditional practices associated with electoral process, Pakistan requires a real and complete break with the past. It is easier said than done but any reform content is required to make it clear that any interference, overt or covert, in an election by anyone from outside the designated electoral machinery will be done under pain of punishment.

This aspect should be widely publicised and independent watchdogs, local and international, should be exhorted to look into this aspect specifically. It should become a mandatory part of proposed electoral reform package.

While considering electoral reform it should be kept in view that adherence to ‘winner-take-all’ Westminster electoral practice complicates electoral process in Pakistan. This method shuts out the loser from any share in state’s resources even if the winner gets minimum majority. Such radical loss for half a decade plays havoc in an agrarian society like Pakistan where influence of familial connection runs supreme.

The impact of such win-lose situation is widespread because it is estimated that almost half of the electoral representation is vested in political families. Since the watershed year of 1970 ushering in the first one man-one vote polls in the country though such representation is
gradually getting reduced yet their indirect impact is still very strong particularly in the largest province of Pakistan.

Although similar connections in political arena are clearly found in industrialised democracies but their impact there is marginalised by intense pluralism ensuring dispersal of equitable power to all stake holders.

The only relief granted in this respect could be reduction in assembly tenure from 5 to 4 years. Five year’s tenure is rather long in the current fast moving political environment.

Pakistani political circles however insist that the electoral exercise is vast entailing high levels of expenditure. Moreover, the administrative and logistic requirement of this exercise is too cumbersome and that it is more appropriate to adhere to 5-year cycle.

It is also suggested that the provincial elections may be held on separate dates so as to ensure that they remain free of the impact created by national polls. Many experts however point out that reduction in legislature tenures may not adversely affect representative prowess but may increase performance level.

The emphasis placed on voter turnout should be watered down. Democratic polities often complain about voter apathy but accept it nevertheless because their long electoral experience has taught them that it is the expression of average General Will that counts and not its level.

In Pakistan the urge for high voter turnout is directly proportional to rigging therefore it should be realistically assessed, even curbed, if possible. A push to achieve higher voter turnout distorts the electoral picture, exposes it to manipulation and increases election costs. It also attracts smaller groups to resort to malpractices just to prove their numerical influence.

Another factor is the continuous delimitation of constituencies and it should be an essential ingredient of electoral reform package. A fixed time frame for delimitation exercise may be initiated keeping in view the relatively fast-changing demographics and population shifts in the country.

It is rather surprising to observe that Pakistan with more than a population of 230 million elects a representative house composed of only 272 directly elected members. Pakistan’s typical political matrix may be better served if the areas of representation are reduced increasing number of representatives.

Here again the difficulty is with the census as almost all political stakeholders question its veracity with the result that it has become extremely difficult to delimit constituencies.

The recent failure to achieve a national consensus on census is surely going to create impediments for the elections to be held in near future. Yet another aspect that required reforming is the setup in place for carrying out the electoral exercise.

The current controversy about the intent, writ and jurisdiction of the Election Commission of Pakistan is expected to increase as plenty of questions are raised about this statutory body and it may not be possible to satisfy the growing clamour about its efficacy in the days to come.