The next electoral exercise

Now that Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif has categorically announced the federal government’s departure upon the completion of the five-year term of the 15th National Assembly, the rumour mill on the next general election should have stopped churning. But it hasn’t.

Some uncertainty is also created by the prime minister himself as he indicated that his government would exit ‘before’ the completion of the tenure of the National Assembly. However, that only adds 30 days to the scheduling of the general election.

The 15th National Assembly completes its five-year constitutional term on August 12, when it will stand dissolved according to Article 52 of the constitution. The general election to the National Assembly or a provincial assembly is to be held within a period of 60 days immediately following the day of the expiry of the term according to Article 224(1). However, if the National Assembly, or a provincial assembly, is dissolved before the expiry of its term, even if it means a day before, general election to the assembly has to be held within a period of 90 days after the dissolution as per Article 224(2). But we have been familiar with this clause – and its non-implementation – after the dissolution of the Punjab and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa assemblies in January.

Why would the coalition government wish to delay general elections by a month beyond 60 days, especially when the day-to-day administration of government in the centre and provinces would be in the hands of caretaker cabinets? This is where the rumour mill gets into a frenzy. Is it to take the schedule of the general election beyond the term of the incumbent leadership of the Supreme Court? Or is it to pave the way for the installation of a caretaker setup that goes beyond its constitutional remit as has been witnessed in Punjab and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa?

By its very nature, the caretaker system provides a stop-gap executive arrangement through which a ‘neutral’ setup looks after the day-to-day administration of executive functions until a new government is elected.

The caretaker experience in Pakistan has been one surrounded by distrust. Pakistan began experimenting with caretaker setups as early as 1985 – though the first caretaker PM was appointed in 1990. Electoral players, not all political, decided that an incumbent government would not provide the playing field required for an electoral exercise.

Appointing caretakers is not a widely followed global practice. While some countries have experimented with the model of caretaker governments, it is not a tradition followed in other major electoral democracies where sitting governments continue in office while electoral commissions look after an independent electoral exercise.

The system of appointment of caretaker cabinets in Pakistan has been refined from just being the forte of the president to an elaborate system involving the prime minister, leader of the opposition, and members of respective assemblies. Through constitutional amendments in 2010 and 2012, namely the 18th Amendment and later the 20th Amendment, a step-by-step procedure was put in place for building consensus on appointment of caretaker prime ministers and chief ministers.

As a first step, the caretaker prime minister has to be appointed through consultation of the outgoing prime minister and leader of the opposition in the outgoing National Assembly. In case there is no consensus between the two on any one person, they are required to send their two nominees each to an eight-member committee comprising equal membership from the treasury and the opposition to be constituted by the speaker of the National Assembly.

The committee constituted for the purpose has three days within which to finalize the name of the caretaker prime minister. However, if the committee also fails to finalize one name, the responsibility to make the final decision on the caretaker prime minister falls on the shoulders of the Election Commission which must choose, from among the nominees, a caretaker PM within two days.

One expects the robustness of the political process to take care of this rather benign nomination in the first or even the second stage. The nomination process should only go to the ECP as a matter of last resort, but we have seen that lack of consensus in Punjab earlier this year led to the ECP appointing Syed Mohsin Raza Naqvi as caretaker chief minister of Punjab in January.

A number of other constitutional provisions also govern the role of caretaker administrations in the centre and in provinces. Since their key role is to provide a neutral overseeing of governance while a free and fair election is held, it is mandatory that caretaker prime ministers, chief ministers and their respective cabinet members, spouses and children do not contest the immediately following general election.

The role of the caretaker administration is further circumscribed by law in the Elections Act, 2017 and mainly revolves around routine executive functions and to assist the Election Commission in holding free and fair elections. The ECP recently reminded the Punjab and KP caretaker chief ministers of their role under the law, warning them against certain individuals, potential contesting candidates and members of political parties interfering into the working of district and divisional administrations and various departments. The ECP communiques went on to say that under section 230 of the Elections Act, 2017, the role and duties of the caretaker government is to ‘maintain neutrality and impartiality during its period and ensure equal treatment and providing level playing field to all political parties and other stakeholders,’ and that the ECP expected the two caretaker administrations to perform their duties according to this legal mandate.

A similar argument – that the caretaker government has no power under the constitution to make lasting policy decisions – was placed before the single-bench of the Lahore High Court regarding a case involving corporate farming. Though a division bench of the LHC has now suspended the earlier LHC decision, a caretaker administration that is facilitated to go beyond its constitutional timeframe and legal remit would further complicate the existing political and democratic challenges facing the country.

The next general election must be held on time and in a free, fair and credible manner. It should not just be going through the motions of an election but must precede a deeper level understanding that only an elected government chosen freely by citizens can find lasting solutions to the problems facing the country.

The writer is an analyst working in the field of politics, democratic governance,

legislative development and rule of law.