Level playing field in polls 2018

Level playing field in elections is a key to success in democracy, as it gives more value and confidence to voters and to their vote. In the last 70 years, we have failed in giving that confidence because we hardly had elections on time and allowed the ruling party to complete its full term in office. This will be the third uninterrupted elections since 2008, and one expects improvement in electoral system with checks and balances pre- during and post-elections in 2018.

Level playing field generally is a concept which revolves around party's apprehension about not getting equal opportunity in elections. Beside, interference from outside like pressure on candidates, it also means the amount of money allowed in the polls, which often goes unchecked and unnoticed.

If we simply analyse last three elections from 2002 to 2013, it would not be difficult to reach a conclusion that level playing field were not provided for all parties and it is not just a myth but a reality. The PPP has mostly been the worst victim as far as provision of level playing field in previous polls. Now it may be joined by the PML-N, as some fear that it (PML-N) may not get a level playing field in 2018.

If, in 2002, both the PPP and the PML-N had reasons to believe that they were not given equal opportunities in the elections; their leaders were kept out, in 2013, The PPP, ANP and MQM had genuine reasons for contesting elections without getting level playing field. They not only faced serious life threats allegedly from Taliban, but some of their leaders were assassinated. In 2008, some parties including the JI and PTI boycotted the elections and the PPP went into polls after the assassination of its leader, Benazir Bhutto.

Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) also had serious reservations on voter lists, and use of administrative force in 2013 elections. The PTI also boycotted 2008 elections and Imran had once alleged that his party could have won more seats in 2002 had it been provided level playing field.

Now, as elections are due in July 2018, the PML-N and former prime minister Nawaz Sharif feared that his party may not get level playing field in the elections.

In the past, when one party or the other expressed their apprehensions over not getting level playing field, they often accused the government of the day for using administrative means or police on putting pressure.

The concept of installing an interim government, 60 or 90s days before polls, was a step forward for non-interference and providing check and balance to ensure free and fair polls. But, in the last elections, even the interim government was accused of manipulating elections, particularly in Punjab.

The other apprehension was the use of pressure from intelligence agencies or alleged misuse of institutions like NAB to exert pressure on candidates and leaders. Interestingly, such allegations come from both sides: government as well as the opposition.

Parties often use delimitation of constituencies, change in voters list and changes in the polling stations as some of the reasons for not getting level playing field in elections.

It also means that the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP), which is supposed to be the most competent forum to remove apprehensions of one party or the other, has failed so far to give that kind of confidence which we witness in other countries. But, there are areas where perhaps the ECP could not do much except for placing certain facts before the parties.

Interestingly, political parties generally demanded elections under the supervision of judiciary and army, but the PPP called the last elections in 2013 as ROs (returning officers) elections, indirectly accusing the judiciary as it had problems with former chief justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry.

Today, disqualified prime minister Nawaz Sharif not feel very comfortable if elections are held under judiciary, as his whole political narrative since July 28 revolves around injustice with him. His other apprehension is towards the misuse of National Accountability Bureau (NAB), whom, he feared, would be used against the PML-N. Even the PPP had similar complains against it in Sindh.

A powerful, autonomous and independent ECP could address all these apprehensions of different parties in order to ensure free and fair polls. Even the powers it still has, the ECP could make lot of difference in removing all misgivings about not providing level playing field.

Making the ECP empowered, an autonomous and independent body is the responsibility of the parliament, through major electoral reforms. The ECP, on its part, still has enough powers to provide strict check and balance like they did by imposing a ban on any development schemes after April 1. Similarly, it blocked all such government advertisements which carry photographs of party heads, PM or CMs. It could also take notice of pre-poll huge expenditures on public meetings, rallies and use of official private plane and helicopters.

But, at the same time, the ECP could have also taken notice of the recently held Senate elections and how easily MNAs and MPAs changed their political loyalties. How suddenly candidates, elected from the platform of one party, switched their sides, form their own group and cast vote against their own party candidates. If all the mainstream parties, from the PML-N to the PTI, from PPP to JUI and others on record said votes were sold, why ECP could not declare such polls void. It can also ask from heads of these parties as what action they had taken against their own MNAs and MPAs.

There is a need for the ECP to impose a ban on change of loyalties for elected representative once he got elected from the platform of one party or the other. Secondly, if someone has been elected as an independent, he or she should not be allowed to join any party as it is tantamount to insult of his or her voters. In such a case, the candidate must resign and then contest from the platform of the party he has joined. This is one way of providing check and balance and stop blackmailing.

Population census and delimitation of constituencies is an important aspect of level playing field not only for the parties and candidates, but for the voters themselves. Both, military and civilian governments were responsible for not conducting census on time and serious questions were raised over delimitation. The last census before 2017 was held in 1998. Therefore, elections held in 2008 and 2013 were based on 1998 census.

The ECP can also take notice if political parties complained about some outside influence, or pressure on their MNAs, MPAs and Senators for changing loyalties. While it may not do much when it comes to cases against any leader or candidate, but could at least monitor whether the investigation has anything to do with genuine case or been used merely as pressure tactics.

It is also a responsibility of the ECP to satisfy all parties and candidates on non-interference of the police, administration and other agencies. Similarly, the ECP also need to satisfy the parties and candidates on the voter list, which in the past become controversial in many constituencies.

The above mentioned apprehensions had been expressed by one party or the other in the elections in the past, if we simply analyse the last three elections i.e. 2002, 2008 and 2013.

In the elections 2002, held under former military dictator General (retd) Pervez Musharraf, both the late Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif were kept out of the electoral process. Yet, the PPP and the PML-N emerged as largest political groups with 92 and 62 seats, respectively in the NA elections. Had the ECP played its due role, it could have taken notice of the manner in which Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif, were kept out as well as the way PPP (Patriot) and PML-Q were used.

Some may have difference of opinion on this point, but to the writer, the ECP could play its role in keeping check and balance on pre- and post-elections on the question of changing loyalties. It is true that the Political Parties Act provided certain restrictions, but yet we have seen how rapidly candidates change their loyalties.

Election-2008 was held in the backdrop of assassination of possible winner, Benazir Bhutto. Yet, unless the then army chief, General (retd) Ashfaq Parvez Kayani assured that army would remain neutral in elections, no one thought it would be fair.

Election-2008 was a setback for Musharraf and his game plan was hit by the decision of the then new army chief, General (retd) Ashfaq Parvez Kayani that “army would remain neutral”, in the polls. Though, the PML-Q leader Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain, in his book, said that Musharraf did not allow his party to win, Musharraf's own game plan was also hurt due to army's non-interference.

There was no level playing field for the PPP, ANP and MQM in 2013, and the ECP could have easily declared that after frequent attack on their leaders and candidates from Taliban.

Today, even the MQM-London has claimed that it has not been provided equal opportunities in the elections. While its leadership was itself responsible for what it did in the last few years, the party had not been officially banned but ousted as a result of mini revolt.

Elections in any country are the responsibility of the Election Commission, which in most democratic countries is independent, autonomous and powerful. In Pakistan, it is not merely the ECP which faces criticism of not ensuring level playing field, but also executive and other state institutions, which face such allegations from one party or the other.

The next 90 days would be important as this will be the third uninterrupted elections in Pakistan since 2008. The ECP has a role to play not only to ensure free, fair and transparent elections but, also to check pre- and post-election scene.

The writer is a senior analyst and columnist of Geo, The News and Jang

Twitter: @MazharAbbas