accusation of a ‘conspiracy’ behind the general election was levelled after a full year from the date of the official notification of winning candidates. Conclusion 2: Of the 58 petitions filed by the PTI, election tribunals have so far accepted only two.
Pildat’s ‘A dispassionate analysis of how elections are stolen & will of the people is defeated’ is an authoritative assessment of eight general elections that took place between 1970 and 2002.
According to Pildat, there are three phases of electoral rigging: pre-poll rigging, polling day rigging and post poll rigging. Pre-poll rigging revolves around four factors: neutrality of the caretaker government, independence of the ECP, neutrality of the election administration staff and use of public resources to benefit some contestants.
Polling day rigging comprises five activities: tampering or stuffing ballot boxes, multiple voting, prevention of voting by certain persons, dishonest counting of votes and dishonest tabulation of results. Post poll rigging “generally refers to the absence of fair play in the formation of a government according to popular mandate.”
According to Pildat, the incidence of polling day rigging has been “low” in 1970, 1985, 1988, 1990, 1993, 1997 and 2002. The only election with “high” polling day rigging has been 1977.
The odds are that the incidence of polling day rigging in Election 2013 was ‘low’. The odds are that the incidence of tampering or stuffing ballot boxes, multiple voting, prevention of voting by certain persons, dishonest counting of votes and dishonest tabulation was ‘low’. And the proof of all this lies in the very low number of petitions filed – and the decisions by election tribunals – compared to a thousand national and provincial assembly seats and the several thousand candidates who actually contested.
Conclusion 3: Contrary to common perception, polling day rigging in our general elections is ‘low’.
The writer is a columnist based in Islamabad. Email: farrukh15hotmail.com
Twitter: saleemfarrukh