Two surprising things have happened in the ongoing election process. One, the controversial conduct of the Returning Officers, and, the proposed addition of a ‘blank’ space on the ballot paper for those voters to stamp who have no confidence in any of the contestants listed therein. The Returning Officers (ROs) have been appointed by the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP). The ECP has wide powers supported by the constitution of Pakistan, and it chose to appoint the ROs from the judiciary as the judiciary is expected to be fair. So the judges from various status and seniority were assigned the task. Unfortunately, the conduct of some of these ROs from the judiciary has been shocking. Many of these ROs have faltered and exposed the stuff of which some ‘judges’ are made! There are weird stories in circulation about the questions asked by these ROs (otherwise judges) to determine the suitability of the candidates under Articles 62 and 63 of the Constitution of Pakistan. One lady applicant for a seat in the assembly was asked her age. To start with, a gentlemen should not ask a lady’s age in good grace! But instead of relying on the ID card, he asked her age. She said she was 35 years old. He did not believe her and asked her to turn around and show her face to all present in the room and asked them if she looked 35! Regrettable. Then another RO asked a candidate as to how many wives he had. This is a completely irrelevant question, to which the candidate said he had three wives. Our RO did not stop here. He further asked which one was his favorite wife and if he actually spent more time with her! Unbelievable. Perhaps the worst and most shameful question was asked by another RO who asked the a lady applicant this question: “What are the days in a month for a woman when she is exempted from saying prayers?” Absolutely shameful question. The lady appropriately retorted and said, “You ask your mother this question.” Such ROs have no business to be there. Another Returning Officer rejected the papers of Mr Amir Ayaz because he could not understand the article written by Ayaz and interpreted it against the ‘ideology of Pakistan’. The questionable conduct of such ROs continues. Some of them, in fact, several of them, have appointed themselves as guardians of religion and morality! They ask questions about Islam and individuals religious practices as if they were teachers in a madrassa. Such officers ask for recitation of several Quranic verses and details of religious principles, which should be none of the business of an RO. The EC would have done better if a standard set of questions was provided and the questioning was not left to the discretion of individuals. These Returning Officers are, after all, human, who get swayed by their mindsets. Let us also not forget that several of these are those who have let almost all terrorists under trial free for one reason or the other. I regret to say that the choice is one of the glaring oversights of the EC. There is good justification for the protests being launched by major political parties against the behaviour of the ROs. The Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP) is reported to have stated, “…the latest process of scrutiny is a witch-hunt aimed at harassing and humiliating candidates…” HRCP further says, “…this deliberate and planned abuse of the process appears to be a bid to complete Ziaul Haq’s agenda to accommodate extremism into the mainstream of politics…” If this time the EC fails then the major onus will be on the misconduct of the ROs. The other controversy is about the blank square or box in the ballot papers. I understand the move was made by a registered political party for the inclusion of such a box in the ballot paper. Initially the application was accepted but soon afterwards the idea was dropped. No open debate took place for inclusion or exclusion. It is said that such blanks are included in the ballot papers in several countries like Canada and Bangladesh. What does a blank do? A blank provides the opportunity to a registered voter to express his decision not to support any of the listed candidates. This expression can be limited to a constituency, but if a large section of the electorate puts its stamp on the blank, it is a comment on the system of selection of candidates and the matter assumes an importance of vital significance. The election loses its credibility and validity. The blank records the opinion of the so-called ‘silent majority’ as long as this category takes the trouble to go and stamp the blank. I thought, and considered, the provision of the blank a good, constructive decision. But I noticed that some thinkers, whom I respect, had reservations and they seemed happy that the implementation had been withheld. The logic put forward was that the blank may be used to sabotage the electoral process. They fear that militants and extremists may flock to stamp the blank, and thus sabotage the electoral process. This may be true, but then how does the majority express its dissatisfaction with the current exploitable electoral system, a system that is open to rigging and control by the landlord, the super-rich, the corrupt and the influential? A system that has no provision for the distinguished persons of the soil who cannot run a campaign, but can contribute immensely for the betterment of the country and people, of which scientists, educationists, economic specialists, intellectuals, researchers, writers and so on are examples. The present system elects ‘lawmakers’ with little educational qualifications, or with forged documents. Can it be relied upon? The elected become the lawmakers! What kind of joke is that with the nation? Doesn’t this system need an overhaul? An appropriate legal/constitutional cover needs to be provided to the blank. The writer is the former CEO Pakistan National Council of the Arts; Chairman Fruit processing Industries; Chairman UNESCO Theatre Institute Pakistan; COO ‘ICTV’ USA, and currently, Senior Vice President APML (Central). He can be reached at naeemtahir37@gmail.com