‘Vote sanctity’ still an unresolved issue

What a coincidence! Some 37 years back, Abdul Hafeez Pirzada was part of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto’s team that negotiated with the opposition over the alleged rigging in 1977 general elections.
Today, he is counsel for Imran Khan, who has challenged the 2013 general elections terming them rigged.Thus, the question of “sanctity of vote” still remains but the battle for ballot has been shifted from Martial Law to Judicial Commission, which shows maturity in our politics, though much still needs to be done.
Now, all eyes are on the findings of the high-powered JC, which concluded its hearing on Friday, which are likely to come in the next two weeks.As per agreement between the ruling PML-N and PTI, if the JC found that there was an element of “organised rigging” and the Election Commission of Pakistan, the Returning Officers and PML-N were involved, the government will step down and fresh elections will be held.
On the other hand, if the JC observed that there was not enough evidence to establish that elections were rigged in an organised and systematic manner, the PTI would accept the elections.
More importantly, the JC would also recommend suggestions for the next elections, which may include major reforms in the Election Commission, electoral list, role of the ROs and Presiding Officers etc.
The question of sanctity of vote was the bone of contention in 1977 and also in 2013 elections. The only difference was that 1977 elections were held by the ruling party but 2013 elections were held under an interim setup.
Sanctity of vote still remains an unresolved issue. After 1977, the vote sanctity was once again eroded in 1988 when elections were manipulated, blocking Benazir Bhutto’s possible landslide.
The 1990 elections were the worst, as for the first time an intelligence agency distributed money among politicians to ensure the PPP’s defeat.But after 2008 elections, the government and the opposition for the first time agreed on an interim setup and an independent Election Commission to hold elections. Yet even the 2013 elections are now under question.
However, the outcome of the JC’s findings may resolve many unresolved questions, even if it gives its finding to the disappointment of either party.In 1977, the election controversy was started after the prime minister and chief ministers were elected unopposed — something which badly damaged the PPP and ZA Bhutto, who even otherwise had a clear edge as predicted by neutral observers and was later admitted by some opposition leaders too.
The formation of JC is a unique phenomenon in our political history but during the process it has already made its mark and impact. All the parties had accepted the JC though its “Terms of Reference” were signed by the two main parties — the ruling PML-N and the main opposition party PTI.
Another important aspect of the JC is that the burden of proof is not on it but on the parties, which had accused of massive rigging.Unlike the movement against ZA Bhutto, which resulted in the killing of hundreds of people followed by negotiations between the PPP and the opposition but ultimately led to Martial Law, the 2013 movement led by Imran Khan remained peaceful but forceful as it forced the government to constitute the JC.
Similarly, unlike in 1977 when General Ziaul Haq allegedly conspired with some politicians in opposition’s ranks who later welcomed Martial Law, in 2013 General Raheel Sharif advised the opposition leaders like Imran Khan and Dr Tahirul Qadri as well as Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif to resolved the issue through “dialogue.”
All the hearings were held in a very cordial atmosphere, though both sides pleaded their cases, both inside the courtroom as well as outside in the “media.”However, there was an element of disappointment for the PTI supporters, who were expecting that the former Chief Justice of Pakistan Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry and a retired Brigadier of MI (as earlier stated by Imran Khan in an interview) would be summoned and evidence of 35 punctures as accused by him against senior journalist Najam Sethi would be produced.
It appears as though his lawyer Mr. Pirzada has punctured his client’s allegation considering it weak evidence. Mr. Pirzada, the then young federal law minister in Bhutto’s cabinet, is now a veteran lawyer, who quit the PPP a few years after July 5, 1977 Martial Law. For Pirzada, this case is most important for him both as a lawyer and as a student of politics.
It would be interesting to see after the JC’s findings whether he contested a weak case very strongly or a very strong case but without enough evidence.The man, who could have been a very strong evidence for both parties but could not appear before the JC because of serious illness is the former chief election commissioner Justice (R) Fakhruddin G. Ebrahim.
His absence was felt because his honesty and integrity is above board. Perhaps his decision to accept the unanimous offer of the government and opposition to head the ECP had dented his unblemished career. But, as a man of integrity he quit soon after the elections, though he could stay in the office until the next elections.
So, as we will be observing July 5 as a Black Day, tomorrow there is an element of hope that the vote sanctity will be finally addressed irrespective of the outcome of the JC’s findings.The writer is the senior columnist and analyst of GEO, The News and Jang.