Daily Times

On an election petition filed by Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaaf (PTI), alleging poll rigging in NA-125 in Lahore, an election tribunal decided in May of this year that the irregularities were serious enough to cancel the constituency’s 2013 election results. Terming it null and void, the tribunal de-seated PML-N’s Khawaja Saad Rafique, the Federal Minister for Railways. Challenging this decision, Saad Rafique petitioned the SC for a “Stay Order” because the election tribunal did not prove that he was involved in the rigging. Suspending the tribunal’s verdict for re-elections, the SC instructed the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) to restore Saad Rafique’s status as the Member National Assembly (MNA) for NA-125. After this stay order, he not only continues to be an MNA but also a Federal Minister.

In line with the August 22 judgement of the Election Tribunal in Lahore, the ECP recently unseated National Assembly (NA) Speaker Sardar Ayaz Sadiq by nullifying his election from NA-122. Ayaz Sadiq, who had defeated the PTI Chairman Imran Khan, accepted the tribunal’s verdict but said that he would challenge this decision in the apex court on various legal grounds. What was really appalling was the manner in which Pervez Rashid, Rana Sanaullah and other PML-N stalwarts went after Justice (retired) Kazim Ali Malik personally. What a democracy, where a supposedly elected government cannot tolerate a judicial verdict without resorting to character assassination of the worst kind. Why can the ECP not protect the sanctity of its Election Tribunals by taking action against this scandalous defamation?

As in the case of Saad Rafique, the primary focus of the tribunal’s verdict was on the glaring irregularities caused by the incompetence and inefficiencies of the polling staff, both during and after the electoral process. Unfortunately, the same holds more or less true for almost every constituency in the country. For the record, other than Khawaja Saad Rafique’s NA-125 and Sardar Ayaz Sadiq’s NA-122, the SC has also seen fit to issue stay orders to Khawaja Asif’s (Minister) NA-110, Attock Sheikh Aftab’s (Minister) NA-57, Attock Malik Intikhab’s NA-58, Malik Riaz’s NA-118 and Sadique Khan’s NA-154. The ECP has shown an inherent incapability to hold general elections in a truly fair and free manner. While the PML-N’s involvement any deliberate manipulation was not conclusive, the Judicial Commission (JC) gave a sab accha (all is well) report in the face of a host of glaring irregularities that it had recorded.

Heading the NA-122 Election Tribunal, Justice (retired) Kazim said in his detailed decision, “No evidence though is available on record that the returned candidate or any other candidate was responsible for the missing record or even for invalid statements of count… But what is apparent, it reflects manifestly clear that serious lapses and negligence was evident at every stage of conduct of elections.” His judgement recorded that many of the complaints and objections that cropped up might well have been avoided with better planning, more professionalism and better devotion to duty. Re-polling was ordered on the clearly drawn conclusion that the election was materially affected. The PML-N should be more than willing to contest a by-election, the popularity of which is not in doubt, given the results of the recently held cantonment local body’s elections. In the Rawalpindi Cantonment and Chaklala Cantonment Board local bodies’ polls, PML-N candidates made a clean sweep, winning in all 20 wards. Retaining massive popularity in the province, the PML-N should not have resorted to the higher courts to obtain stay orders but should have showed its strength by going for re-elections.

Stay orders by courts are meant to give temporary relief to either party, which is followed by detailed proceedings to establish guilt or innocence. The spirit behind the stay orders is excellent but the system is being manipulated to provide relief to only a handful. This safeguards the interests of the innocent party; this is not the case in the majority of instances because the SC workload causes a delay in dispensing justice. The liberal recourse for stay orders is systematically and cynically being exploited by the guilty, at times for an unjustified end. Restraining the misuse of these laws falls squarely not only upon the government’s shoulders but on the higher courts, who must formulate a mechanism to ensure that such abuse of laws does not take place. Such mechanisms must also have provisions for the punishment of those who misuse these laws to shield themselves.

What is worrying is the tendency of whosoever is frustrated to turn to our higher courts. What then becomes the rationale for a democratic dispensation? After all, democracy is meant to empower the ordinary citizens and promote as well as protect individual freedoms, not to be misused for the interests of a handful of people. If election tribunals continue to declare elections in each constituency irregular without pinning the blame on any party, the entire electoral process will be seen as a farce. Given the fact that judgment by the SC is not expected anytime soon because of its workload, decisions made by the Election Tribunals are challenged in every case, making the whole rationale behind setting up the Election Tribunals to reinforce the process of democracy null and void.

Though the situation is far better than a year ago, Pakistan is struggling to strengthen its democratic governance. Terrorism, domestic insurgencies, sectarian and communal violence have taken a huge toll on the morale and economy of the country. Our external challenges are two-fold i.e. our relations with India and Afghanistan, which have continued to pose enduring security dilemmas for Pakistan. As for the domestic front, it is ironic that despite the fact that both major political parties are quite moderate, they have failed to modernise, industrialise, educate or develop Pakistan’s society for decades. Our principal challenge lies in the revival of the economy and the crisis of corruption has become endemic. Because of its nexus with organised crime and terrorism, the process of democracy is being hurt badly. India takes advantage of the situation that our politicians have created and does not miss an opportunity to pressurise us, internally or externally.

With the politics of stay orders being played out so liberally, can we be faulted for believing that we live in a stay order style of democracy? There is considerable frustration at out the lack of governance. How long before the mounting frustration because of the lack of speedy justice in the electoral process forces a stay order (pun intended) on democracy?

The writer is a defence analyst and security expert