Contrary to the expectations of some legal analysts and the past history of our judiciary of giving ambiguous verdicts, the current judgment given by the Judicial Commission (JC) was unambiguous and clear cut. The verdict was given after 39 hearings, and examination of 69 witnesses, nine of whom belonged to the PTI. The verdict rejected the allegation made by the PTI, declaring the elections of 2013 to be free from any systematic rigging. Some procedural lapses and shortcomings by the Election Commission (ECP) were definitely observed. The verdict, certainly to a great extent, salvaged the credibility of our electoral system.
The three terms of reference (TORs) put before the JC, with the consensus of the PTI and the government, were as follows: a) the JC was to determine whether or not the 2013 elections were held impartially, honestly, fairly and in accordance with the law; b) the JC was also to determine whether any organised and systematic rigging pursuant to a systematic effort, or by design by anyone, had taken place, and c) whether or not the results of the 2013 general elections on an overall basis were a true and fair reflection of the electoral mandate.
The JC, after thorough examination of the evidence put before it, gave the following unequivocal decision: “Despite shortcomings of the Election Commission of Pakistan, the polls were largely conducted fairly and in accordance with law.” In other words, no organised rigging as alleged by the PTI was found. The JC thus did a great service to the nation by ending the 2013 election’s uncertainty once and for all, which in some ways was more dangerous for Pakistan than the militancy that it is facing.
The immaculate conduct of the judges of the Supreme Court (SC) led by its Chief Justice (CJ) Nasirul Mulk, who constituted the JC, was praised for its meticulous probing and patient hearing of all parties by all, including Imran Khan. The all-important decision of the JC has some important lessons for all stakeholders. First of all, the PML-N should justly feel relieved in getting a clear bill of health on the 2013 elections, which it had won. This, however, does not mean that the JC gave a clean bill to the PML-N’s style of governance. Now that the elections have been validated, the PML-N, instead of gloating about it, or trying to rub the PTI’s nose in the mud, should concentrate on improving its governance and give priority to the welfare of the weaker segments of society.
The PTI, on its part, has much to learn also. There is a world of difference between hurling wild accusations and proving those accusations on a judicial forum. On any judicial forum the onus of providing the evidence lies on the accuser. The evidence thus provided has to be solid and watertight. There seems to be a consensus amongst judicial commentators that the PTI argued its case — which was a very feeble one to start with — in an extremely shabby manner.
Imran Khan, being the head of the second largest party in power, made some very scathing and personal remarks against ex-Chief Justice Iftikhar Ahmed Chaudhry and a famous television commentator. However, at the hearing, not a word was said about those two gentlemen by the PTI’s lawyers. These personal and unsubstantiated attacks were quite unfair and damaged Imran Khan’s personal image. One has to give the PTI credit for translating and voicing the aspirations of the middle class who attended his rallies in such large numbers. It would now be a test for Imran Khan to keep this middle class base intact till the next elections. The PTI also has the opportunity to turn Khyber Pakhtunkhwa into a model province till the next elections.
The JC clearly mentioned the shortcomings and lapses of the Election Commission in conducting the 2013 elections. The Election Commission seems to badly lack the capacity and trained manpower to conduct this humongous exercise: the general elections. Instead of being defensive, the Election Commission needs to work on its shortcomings.
Election reforms and, in some cases, restructuring are the main needs of the hour. Many different kinds of election models are practiced by democracies throughout the world. Proportional representation or a local variant of it could be tried. The election commission has to be much more responsible and autonomous at the same time. Earnest efforts must be made to minimise the role of money, as under the present circumstances only the very rich can take part in elections. Our democracy has, over the years, been effectively reduced to a kleptocracy.
The writer is a freelance columnist