Daily Times

The electoral frenzy in Pakistan is over. The results astounded many people but were by and large in conformity with pre-electoral surveys. Rigging has always been part and parcel of Pakistani elections but due to increased public awareness and media presence, this time it became a major issue that overshadowed the histrionic build-up to the elections, which were touted as the most important in Pakistan’s history. In a hostile post-election milieu where all sorts of valid and invalid claims regarding manipulation of results are being made to the election commission, perhaps deeper issues such as the electoral system employed by Pakistan and its viability are not being discussed sufficiently to understand the results more clearly.

Pakistan employs the first-past-the-post voting system, which essentially means that the candidate who manages to garner the largest amount of votes in a legislative district wins. This system can be unfair as a closely fought district where a candidate wins by a narrow margin may leave a significant number of voters who voted for some other candidate alienated and unrepresented.

The proportional representation system might be more viable for Pakistan. According to this system, the percentage of votes a party receives in the election will be reflected in the number of seats it attains in the National Assembly. Unfortunately, the current system does not allow representation in proportion to the number of votes received. For example, as a result of the elections held in Pakistan in 1993, the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) with 37 percent of the total votes cast formed the government whereas the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) with 42 percent had to sit in opposition. Similarly, in 2002, the PPP got lesser NA seats than the Pakistan Muslim League-Quaid (PML-Q) despite having a greater number of votes. The 2013 elections results are no different. Although the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaaf (PTI) has emerged as the second biggest party in Pakistan according to votes cast in its favour after the PML-N, it is ranked third in terms of NA seats.

Moreover, what is even more surprising is that despite capturing a significant chunk of votes in big cities like Lahore and Karachi, the PTI has only been able to win a seat each in these locations. In Lahore for example, the PTI got approximately 0.7 million votes in contrast to the PML-N’s 1.2 million but due to the inherently flawed current electoral system, the PML-N won all the seats with the exception of NA-126. This result clearly does not reflect the will of the people if seen from a holistic perspective.

Moreover, this voting system can also inadvertently skew the behaviour of voters as they either tend to vote for parties that have a palpable chance in their particular constituency or abstain from voting altogether, if they feel that the party they favour has no chance of winning there. Hence, under this voting system, the dissenting voter has to base his decision on probability rather than free will.

The proportional representation electoral system, if applied in Pakistan, will encourage voters to vote for the party of their choice whose policies they agree with, without the fear that their votes would amount to nothing. Countries that employ proportional representation generally have many smaller parties and a wider spectrum of political opinions. After all, diversity only strengthens democracy as every view is represented at the Centre.

This also forces cohesion and unity amongst political parties, who work for the greater good of the nation. While our politicians feared that the emergence of the PTI would produce a hung parliament, which would hinder the smooth running of governance, we should not forget how exploitative and domineering our elected leaders can become, perhaps too much for their own good if they get an overwhelming majority in parliament.

From a social angle, the present electoral system has fanned the fire of parochialism, which is a deep-rooted problem in Pakistan. The recent election results are a manifestation of this problem, due to the failure of any party to emerge as a national party representing all of Pakistan. The PPP has been relegated from being a national party to a provincial party due to the heavy mandate it received in Sindh alone. Similarly, the PTI with its lion’s share of the mandate in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa seems set to form government there. In a similar vein, Nawaz Sharif will form the governments in Punjab and in the Centre, as Punjab has more than half the seats in the National Assembly. Balochistan, like always, will have a coalition government, comprising of Baloch nationalist parties and headed by the PML-N.

Furthermore, with the passing of the 18th Amendment, provinces have more autonomy, which might lead to disputes between the Centre and the provinces in the future. With slogans such as ‘Separate Karachi from Pakistan’ surfacing even before formation of the new government, one can only wonder what the next five years might be like.

In the year leading to the elections, we witnessed how developmental works were started and millions of rupees doled out by representatives in their districts, vying for another term in parliament. The worst cases of pork-barrelling were perhaps done by Yousaf Raza Gilani and Raja Pervez Ashraf, who redirected billions of rupees towards their home constituencies, although to no avail. As proportional representation treats the whole nation as one constituency, voters are encouraged to base their voting decisions according to parties’ manifestoes, instead of individuals.

The single-member district system, which makes use of first-past-the-post voting currently in place in Pakistan, stresses more on ‘electables’ rather than ideologies. Presently, allegiance to political parties is fickle as it based on convenience rather than principles. Under the proportional representation system, however, votes are cast not for the individuals but for the party they represent.

The aforementioned arguments for the proportional representation in order to be implemented will require a paradigm shift. We should objectively analyse the pros and cons of the present electoral system and then reach a conclusion whether it best represents the will of the people or not. If not, then we should not hesitate to modify it. Germany, for example, utilises a mixture of proportional representation and first-past-the-post system. The fact that the present system was bequeathed to us by our colonial masters is not good enough reason, alone, to persist with it.

The writer is an intern at Daily Times