Daily Times

Politics never ceases to amaze the quiet mind. Just when it appears rational for politics to have learnt its lessons, after being kicked, punched and thrown around, the party starts all over again; supporters of democracy should realise that the music cannot continue forever. Strictly speaking, selling votes for Senate elections, if at all that is the case, might not fall within the definition of horse-trading in politics. In fact, decent law abiding horse-traders should organise a protest against this slander or perhaps file a petition in the Supreme Court (SC) for libel. What is worse is that this media blitz about horse-trading taking place during the Senate elections is horrendously misdirected; the news is not how it impacts various political parties but that horse-trading is ab initio unacceptable and should be ferociously combated.

For some it might be a puzzle why the poor horse has become a symbol for underhand dealings in politics. As the story goes, somewhere in the 19th century, when machines had not replaced horses, buying a horse was not for the faint hearted. Apparently, it is quite difficult to judge a horse’s qualities, providing an opportunity for the sellers to be dishonest and engage in underhand dealings. Accordingly, the profession was elevated to the unenviable position of signifying unethical business practices across the board. In politics, horse-trading over time became an acceptable term for manoeuvring votes for political objectives, generally for forming alliances or passing of legislation; whether or not outright sale of votes falls within the purview of political horse-trading remains a question mark. The very fact that the term was coined and has global acceptance should repulse the idealists.

On the other hand, the underlying system itself is operating in a manner that encourages horse-trading. While there are no exact estimates, the majority will agree that contesting an election for the national or provincial parliament in Pakistan requires that the candidates spend bundles of money, somewhere in eight figures in rupee terms, or maybe even nine in larger constituencies. Even if the candidates do not spend on the campaign directly, which excuse is the norm and curiously acceptable to the election regulator, it would be naïve to believe that friends and families fund the campaign for the betterment of the common Pakistani, notwithstanding a few exceptions to the rule perhaps, who might be spending simply for the privilege of sitting in the august houses. I always wonder why it is August and not September or October or even February for that matter.

Undeniably, there can obviously be a view that parliamentarians are in reality motivated by public service and spend crores of rupees from their personal wealth for this very privilege, suggesting that they are extremely wealthy and willing to spend a bundle every four years without expectation of any return thereon. Note that expensive electoral budgets are not a domestic phenomenon and this school of thought must also believe that donations by US corporations for electoral candidates are without any notion of future gains. Accordingly, readers who subscribe to this theory need not go any further but they must understand that, by default, they must also believe that the Prime Minister (PM) is unnecessarily worried about horse-trading.

On the other assumption that spending on election campaigns does not always have a philanthropic motive, the payback period is then equivalent to the term of the incumbents. In an environment replete with rumours of inevitability of a martial law every quarter, payback becomes highly uncertain, thereby encouraging horse-trading. Note that leaders of almost all the political parties have admitted to the existence of ongoing horse-trading for Senate seats.

To digress a bit, the tax reforms committee can perhaps suggest a tax of 20 percent on the cost of elections for the august houses. This can be accomplished by engaging the tax department during every election to compile a record of money spent by following the money trail and the associated rumours. It is envisaged that the money collected will be sufficient to balance the budget. Curiously, if everybody believes in horse-trading during Senate elections and also the rumours about the quantum of funds exchanging hands, then the belief in the accuracy of asset statements filed by the incumbents becomes dubious.

So, why does Pakistan need a Senate in the first place? The bicameral legislature was deemed necessary at the time of approving the Constitution of Pakistan to provide equal representation to the provinces in the Senate to counter the lopsidedness of the National Assembly, since elections to the latter are based on the population of each province. The Senate’s most important, perhaps the singular, role is that unless passed by the Senate, a bill cannot become law, except of course for money bills. Which brings to fore a worrisome realisation that if at all horse-trading is a reality, how motivated will those who have indulged in the activity be in protecting the interests of their respective provinces?

Contrary to personal beliefs at least, there are only 17 seats for technocrats, including ulema, in the Senate, out of a total of 104 seats. Notwithstanding that a Google search did not result in determining what exactly is meant by a technocrat and the related minimum desired qualifications, if the appointments in the Senate are predominantly through a selection process, why have general seats at all? And if for some reason general seats are deemed necessary, what is the hurdle in opting for appointments through the process of universal suffrage as in the case of the National Assembly? A general election for the general seats in the Senate might even boost economic activity at the grassroots level.

In the final analysis, the existence or otherwise of a high level of spending to secure a Senate or National Assembly seat will remain within the domain of conjecture, rumour and speculation. Admittedly, it might not be impossible to confirm if these speculations have substance or not, assuming there is a will to do so. Meanwhile, colleagues in the democracy camp insist that the system will evolve and eventually weed out all unwanted anomalies, although they sidestep queries on the timeframe required thereof. But till such time the nation can hope that all these rumours are fallacious and the best persons get the job. And let us hope that Pakistan wins the Cricket World Cup.

The writer is a chartered accountant based in Islamabad. He can be reached at syed.bakhtiyarkazmi@gmail.com and on twitter @leaccountant