Daily Times

The usual sequence of accusation, allegations and claims of buying and selling of votes which started before Senate elections has continued. After rejecting the new Senate Chairman’s audience request and calls for his removal, the Prime Minister (PM) has gone a step further and has called for scrapping the Senate polls altogether.

PML-N had high hopes for the Senate elections. It had hoped to secure a two-third majority to reverse the consequences of court rulings against Nawaz Sharif. However, a number of factors, including rebellion in the party’s Balochistan chapter and disappointing performances in Punjab and KP during the Senate elections dashed all such hopes. The last nail in the coffin was hammered by the ruling party’s narrow defeat during elections for the seats of Senate Chairman and Deputy Chairman.

The nature of the Senate elections makes it possible for each party to expect a given number of its members returning from the Electoral College. There, however, are marginal seats where one candidate or the other can expect passing the ribbon. This time, however, there were too many of such unexpected victories and defeats and almost all parties, except the PPP, felt hurt in one province or another. Each party accused the other of buying votes.

Some elements of bribery are present in all elections — from that of a Local Government ward right upto the parliament and presidential elections. In case of Senate elections, as the voters are members of parliament and provincial assemblies, the same is drummed up with sadistic pleasure. All sorts of figures, sometimes in the tens of millions, are quoted as the price of each voter’s conscience. Accusations, however, are often based on presumptions or grossly overstated, the remedies being proposed are against existing relevant provisions in the law and the constitution and fundamental flaw in Senate election system is being ignored.

The nature of the Senate elections makes it possible for each party to expect a given number of its members returning from the Electoral College

It is presumed that any vote a party received in any of the electoral-college beyond its strength in the respective assembly is due to monetary incentives offered to the voters, impact of party alliances at the provincial level, personal likes and dislikes and association and member’s links with candidates. Internal party politics in different parties are completely ignored.

A deeper look into the results will show us a different picture. In Balochistan, the new ruling alliance was able to get its nominees, mostly from the middle class, elected in accordance with its strength. The opposition parties in the province were able to get shares as per their strength in the provincial assembly. So where did the horse trading occur?

In FATA, the sitting MNAs who form the electoral college for the seats from the region, have their own system under which they mostly co-opt each other’s nominees every three years.

A lot is being said about the PPP winning three extra seats, one each on General, Technocrat and women categories, in Sindh. In 2015, the MQM was still intact as a very disciplined political party. With 51 members in the 168 member house, whereas PPP only had 91, it was able to win one seat each from women and technocrat category. This time around however, MQM was a divided house. Many of its members went to PSP, some still supporting Altaf Hussian have either gone abroad or are under ground. At the same time, the PPP won a few opposition seats as well as loyalties of disgruntled sitting members from other parties.

On the election-day, the MQM was still able to poll around 37 votes for its candidates on women, minorities and technocrat seats. In this scenario, even with the number of votes it had in 2015,the PPP would have both seats in the women and technocrat categories by dividing 45 votes for each candidate. It is another matter that it had more votes this time.

The MQM would have been able to get two seats in the general category if all these 37 votes were polled for its candidates. However, for their own reasons, eight MPAs, presumably from the MQM spoiled their votes. Had these votes been validly polled than Kamran Tissori would have surged ahead of Raza Rabbani, Mustafa Nawaz Khokhar and Imamuddin Shauqeen of the PPP and MQM would have won two seats and PPP’s tally would have remained at four.

In KP, PPP took advantage of its alliance with the JUI-F, and because it had worked on the anti-Pervez Khattak faction in the PTI, it was able to secure an additional seat this time.

Political parties naturally expect members of provincial assemblies belonging to them to vote for party supported candidates in accordance with party directions. Though morally and politically, that expectation is justified but legally and constitutionally they are not bound to do this.

Under article 63-A of the constitution, which deals with floor crossings, a members of Parliament and Provincial Assemblies is declared to be defecting from his party only if he or she votes contrary to party directions during the ascertainment [election] of the PM or a Chief Minister (CM), vote of confidence against the same or during voting on money bill or bill for constitutional amendment. Voting during all these instances is open and mostly by division and does not come under the definition of ‘elections’. A member can be de-seated in case he or she violates party discipline. The article does not cover voting during the Senate or presidential elections, which come under article 226, where secrecy is guaranteed.

Article 226 of the constitution says, “All elections under the constitution, other than those of PM and CM, shall be by secret ballot”.

Sub-section (b) of section 178 Election Act 2017 says, “A person is guilty of interference with the secrecy of voting if he … (b) in any manner obtains or attempts to obtain in a polling station information as to the candidate or candidates for whom a voter is about to vote or mark his preferences in case of election to the Senate or has voted or, as the case may be, marked his preferences;

It seems that the founders of the constitution as well as the succeeding parliaments never wanted a strictly party based voting system for the Senate or Presidential elections. Frankly that does not seem to be intention of any political party even today. Had there been any intention than it would have been done during the 18th amendment in 2010 or electoral reforms carried out during the last couple of years.

Whether voting in violation of party lines, if any, was done due to bribery is hard to prove, but is abhorrent and is practiced in the elections in this country at all levels. It is more shameful if done during the Senate or Presidential elections as here it isn’t ordinary people casting the vote, but those representing them. This, as already said, is hard to detect and stop. Individual candidates are not solely responsible for vote buying during the Senate elections. Sitting governments have always been major culprits who used public money, influence and resources to buy or bully voters.

The Present Senate electoral system does not reflect the true support base of the political parties in federating units. It is highly lopsided in favour of the majority parties in the provinces. In order to establish a truly representative Senate, it is important to hold Senate elections directly through a proportional representation system on the party list. Only in this way can all shades of public opinion in the federating unites be reflected in the upper house of parliament.

The writer is a freelance columnist

Published in Daily Times, April 3^rd 2018.