Undermining the elections

In our own little world of feudal-colonial-authoritarian traditions, the aspirations for democratic values and institutions are evenly matched by a discomfort with both values and institutions. How deep is that discomfort is reflected in the op-ed pages, talk-shows, and rumours of impending collapse of the democratic continuity.

All those opinions, analyses and rumours are indicative not so much of an apprehension but of a kind of satisfaction born out of unacknowledged discomfort with democratic processes. The discomfort with democratic dispensation has a long tradition in our culture that can be traced back, in modern times, to such venerable sources as Sir Syed Ahmed Khan and Allama Iqbal who were rather sceptical of the virtues of modern democracy.

That sceptical view of democracy survives yet, in a vastly changed context, in certain quarters, and does influence the current political discourse where some highly regarded retired generals and bureaucrats, scholars and theologians, keep offering their prescriptions for good governance by restricting governance to some kind of oligarchy presented as a beneficial rule by a dedicated meritocracy.

One way to restrain a popular democratic dispensation is to change the form of government to an elitist presidential form of government. The other option is to establish a system of rigorous screening of candidates before they can be allowed to compete for electoral support. This can be done by imposing moral, religious, financial and reputational qualifications and disqualifications such as the ones that are already in place after the constitutional amendments made by General Ziaul Haq.

Since the first option, change in the form of government, is not possible before the elections, there is constant drumbeat for the second option: strict enforcement of the provisions of Articles 62 and 63 of the constitution that were not taken seriously in previous elections for being relics of a dictatorial intervention.

The Election Commission may or may not succumb to those pressures, but we can expect much mud-slinging through election tribunals by rival candidates by invoking Ziaul-haqian requirements such as: ‘he is of good character and is not commonly known as one who violates Islamic Injunctions’; ‘he has adequate knowledge of Islamic teachings and practises obligatory duties prescribed by Islam as well as abstains from major sins’.

Many potentially good candidates may, therefore, refrain from participating in the elections for fear of being maligned, ridiculed and defamed by unscrupulous rival candidates making scandalous allegations before election tribunals. The number of such unscrupulous spoilers, as we shall presently see, could be in the thousands.

In the last elections there were about 8000 candidates for 849 general seats in the national and provincial assemblies, put up by 49 political parties. This time round as many as 145 parties have been registered by the Election Commission, and the election itself is likely to be much more hotly contested than at any time in the past. The number of candidates this year could, therefore, be more than 10,000. Out of this the number, desperate spoilers would run in thousands.

Since objections based on the prescribed qualifications or disqualification can be raised at any time during the tenure of an elected legislator, as happened in the cases involving fake degrees and dual nationality, we can expect a spate of election petitions for the next five years. And there would be no lack of grounds for litigation as, in addition to Ziaul Haq’s prescription, the Election Commission has, on its own, devised a nomination form that requires too many disclosures about personal and domestic matters, including, for example, the number of wives of the candidates. Any of those disclosures could be challenged, as there is no penalty for making false allegations.

So the stage is set for making a mockery of the elections in which so much emotional, political, legislative and administrative investment has been made by the nation as a whole to make it the first truly free and fair elections in our electoral history. Those who succeed in making a mockery of the elections will also succeed in making a mockery of democracy itself. And that seems to be the ultimate objective.

Since a direct attack on the very concept of democracy is not expedient, the target of criticism and mockery is ‘parliamentary form of democracy’. The authors of various alternative forms of government can, thus, heap their scorn on the politicians and those who elect them, the people, without raising the suspicion of being the residue of the authoritarian rule to which we have been subjected so frequently for long spells.

Even now when we are only weeks away from polling day, the detractors of parliamentary democracy remain busy on op-ed pages and talk-shows, denouncing not just the previous incumbents but also possible future ones, instead of offering ideas for making the electoral process free, fair and peaceful.

What we do see, instead, is an effort to make the election process not only difficult but dangerous as well. While things were going smoothly towards the run-up to the elections there was, suddenly, a loud demand, immediately picked up by a section of the media, to rigorously enforce the provisions of Article 62 and 63 of the constitution, and also to make rules for adding more requirements for candidacy.

Next, there is a constant guesswork, offered with feigned concern, that there would be bloodshed on election day. We hear and read about it on daily basis. So the election that has been made quite difficult for the candidates, will be quite dangerous, we are told, for the voters.

If we look at the sequence of events, there is a discernible discomfort with democratic values and institutions. First, there were rumours, amounting to invitation, of military intervention, within a year of the installation of the new government after the elections in 2008. Second, when that did not materialise, there were rumours, along with justifications, for judicial intervention.

Third, when neither of the two possibilities materialised, there was a wishful speculation about a long-term caretaker setup to set things right. Fourth, when all of the rumours and speculations failed, there came a sudden but persistent demand for a comprehensive scrutiny of the candidates on the basis of the already existing 22 qualifications and disqualifications provided in the constitution, and some additional requirements to be introduced by the Election Commission. Fifth, now when those demands have been met, and elections seem inevitable, the electorate is being warned on a regular basis that there will be bloodshed on the streets on election day.

The last two links in that five-phase sequence cannot but ensure that as many candidates are disqualified as possible, and as many voters are kept away from the polling stations as can be frightened. I hope those who matter in the conduct of the electoral process – the Election Commission, the civil and military bureaucracy, the judiciary, and the media – do understand that if this is allowed to happen, the whole credibility of the elections would be undermined.

It will also be a signal for a decisive assault on the democratic system of governance, disguised as a rejection of the discredited parliamentary form of government. The feudal-colonial-authoritarian mindset, that always had a contempt for the people, will win.

The writer is a former civil servant. Email: iqjafar@gmail.com