Malik M. Ashraf
It is a painful and irrefutable reality that almost all general elections held in the country have been made controversial by the losing parties, thereby fomenting a political crisis. The general elections held in February 2024 are no exception. The country has been mired in a perennial political crisis since then, with PTI being the most vociferous in claiming that its mandate was stolen and a “Form-47 government” installed. The party has been demanding either the restoration of its mandate or the holding of free and fair elections immediately.
Not only PTI but also JUI(F) has alleged rigging, particularly in KPK. Speaking at a JUI(F) rally in Peshawar on 6 January, its leader reiterated the claim, stating that a fake government was installed in KPK due to rigging based on Form-47, sidelining JUI(F) as in other parts of the country. His assertions raise questions about PTI’s claim of victory in KPK and other regions. Moreover, PTI’s loss in four by-elections in Punjab and the defeat of two of its supported candidates in recounts strongly challenge its narrative of being the most popular party with an overwhelming mandate.
The ongoing political instability, stemming from issues surrounding general elections, underscores a fundamental problem in the way we elect our leaders. Reforming the electoral system and addressing governance issues that enable rigging are the most pressing challenges for the country. The proposed dialogue between the government and PTI—prioritising the release of all PTI workers, including Imran Khan, and the formation of a judicial commission—is unlikely to resolve the root issue. These demands, as evident from government statements, will not be conceded.
PTI workers and its founding chairman are not political prisoners; they face serious charges, including corruption and attacks on military installations, GHQ, and martyrs’ monuments. Only the courts can decide their fate. Similarly, the demand for a judicial commission is untenable given the irrefutable evidence about the incidents of 9 May and 26 November.
Even if the government were to accept these demands, it would not resolve the issue of rigging in future elections. Addressing superficial concerns without tackling the root cause is akin to pulling buckets of water from a well to cleanse it without removing the dog that fell in. Dialogue, if it is to happen, must involve all political stakeholders. It should focus on evolving an electoral system through collective wisdom that eliminates the possibility of rigging, alongside reforms in governance.
As a student of politics and world history, I advocate for switching to proportional representation instead of the current single-constituency system, which lies at the heart of the rigging problem. The single-constituency system entrenches the power of landed aristocracy and elitist classes. Proportional representation, on the other hand, offers a solution by ensuring representation based on the percentage of votes each party polls.
In this system, voters cast their ballots for parties rather than individual candidates. Parties are then allocated parliamentary seats based on their share of the vote. This system, adopted by around fifty countries, mostly in Europe, reflects the true support for political parties and ensures the inclusion of smaller and regional parties, making the legislature a truly representative body. Party leaders are freed from the blackmail of “electables” and can nominate competent individuals from various walks of life. Proportional representation also eliminates horse-trading and floor-crossing for personal gain, reducing the influence of non-democratic forces in forming and breaking governments.
To make this system effective, voting must be made compulsory, ensuring every registered voter exercises their right to vote. Additionally, a foolproof system leveraging modern technologies should be developed for casting votes. Contentious issues like the election date and caretaker government formation must also be permanently resolved. As in the United States, parties should agree on a fixed date for elections every five years, removing this prerogative from the sitting government. Similarly, the caretaker government’s composition should be predetermined, allowing parties to focus on substantive programmes rather than procedural disputes.
The judiciary, as the most respected and trusted institution, should play a key role. Political parties should agree that the most recently retired Supreme Court judge will head the caretaker setup, with the freedom to select a team to conduct free and fair elections and manage government affairs until the new government assumes charge. The same principle should apply to appointing the Chief Election Commissioner and commission members.
The writer is a freelance columnist. He can be reached at ashpak10@gmail.com.
