How to have ‘vote’s sanctity’

All those who use their right to vote in election also expect from their elected representative to give honour and respect to their vote by leading from the front through good governance, high moral grounds and through clean record particularly when they are in power.

They certainly don’t want that their vote to be disrespected by non-representative people or power, ouster of their leaders through unconstitutional means, but, at the same time they also want that if their representatives found guilty in corruption or criminal cases, they should be punished or made accountable as they considered it as breach of trust and disrespect to their vote.

Whether the case of former premier Nawaz Sharif, is a case of ‘sanctity of vote’ or breach of voter’s trust, needs fair analysis. His ouster on July 28 is certainly different from his past two sackings in 1993 and 1999.

Completely linking disqualification with the past history of martial law or dissolving assemblies would not be a fair assessment. It is true that in a country where Constitution could not protect itself from its abrogators for almost 70 years; it would be naive to talk about ‘sanctity of vote’. Perhaps, we are all responsible, some more other less. Had respect been given to the vote and voter’s choice, Pakistan’s political history would have been different. The dilemma is that we are still not ready to learn and repeat the same old mistakes.

The question is whether vote’s sanctity had been violated or not, if so, how, particularly in the present case of Nawaz Sharif? He had been disqualified by an independent Supreme Court, and he was not sacked under any presidential order. Yes, when it comes to political engineering, manipulation, defections and perceptions, ‘sanctity of vote’ could be under threat.

In order to maintain vote’s sanctity, it is important that all political parties be given, ‘level playing field’, and political engineering be checked by the institutions responsible for holding free and fair elections.

Sanctity of vote is also linked with good governance and institution-building. If elected government failed it is also tantamount to breach of voter’s trust. While no one supports any extra-constitutional rule, it is the responsibility of people’s representative to truly represent their people.

Leaders have to be on high moral ground with a clean record and know the art of governance, if we really want to maintain ‘sanctity of vote’. Pakistan’s political history provides ample proof of political engineering and efforts to get ‘positive results’. The concept of King’s Party or all the ‘king’s men’, must stop as history showed it never gave required result.

In the past, sanctity of the vote was often disrespected through back-to-back martial laws like 1958, 1968, 1977 and 1999 martial law and through legal sanctions, but, it is also true whenever given chance the elected representatives themselves showed disrespect to its voters and vote by not setting good examples of governance and institution-building.

On the contrary, they faced serious charges of corruption and crimes, some false other true. Crisis in 1970-71 was a result of not giving respect to the mandate and denying majority to rule. Politicians are as much responsible for the tragedy of East Pakistan as the then military establishment.

Sanctity of vote was again violated in 1977, and though, PPP could have won the elections and could have even got simple majority, sanctity of vote was violated through selective rigging and getting PM and CMs elected unopposed.

Earlier, politicians missed the chance of giving sanctity to vote after Independence during 1948 and 1956 crisis just because they were scared of ‘majority’s rule’. Politicians become tool and discredited themselves by conspiring against their political rivals.

Zulfikar Ali Bhutto would not have been hanged had the then opposition not backed Gen Zia and provided silent consent to him. Benazir and Nawaz governments would not have been dislodged had they not conspired against each other with the then establishment.

Yes, martial law is no rule and yet it ruled this country for over 34 years. If judiciary had validated such rule, the politicians also become their partners and who knows it better than Mian Nawaz Sharif, himself.

Nawaz has a weak case when he linked his disqualification and trial with ‘sanctity of vote’, as he was disqualified by the Supreme Court. Now, he is facing a trial and if found guilty could be jailed. But the PML-N case can become strong when it linked it with political engineering and instances like change in Balochistan, Senate elections, defections like ‘South Punjab Mahaz’ or events in Karachi.

Parliamentarians’ poor presence in the assembly sessions including that of Nawaz Sharif and Imran Khan showed their disrespect for the vote and voters, though, party in power has more responsibility.

If today former prime minister Nawaz Sharif talked about ‘sanctity of vote’, he should start with a confession of his own role in showing disrespect to vote. While he and the late Benazir Bhutto had publicly admitted their mistakes in dislodging each other from power, the record of the PML-N is poorer in this connection.

All need to learn from their mistakes and certainly we are in the process of learning. Politicians particularly those in power always learnt when they are out lose power. The dilemma is that they repeat such mistakes when they get another chance.

Who knows better than Nawaz himself as he is the only politician who was voted to power thrice. Twice he repeated the same mistake and as a result lost his electoral politics for life the third time.

This time Mian sb was not the victim of any Article 58-2(B) or as a result of any presidential order, military rule but, he was disqualified by a large bench of the Supreme Court and that too in his own government.

Here, the sanctity of the vote was maintained as unlike in the past, the PML-N government as well as Parliament is very much intact. Mian sb is now boldly facing the trial in the NAB court and at least on this front, politicians have a better track record than military dictators and other institutions.

Had the PML-N government in its tenure brought drastic electoral reforms, made Election Commission of Pakistan, powerful and independent and set some good examples of governance and respect for other institutions, it could have strengthened ‘voters’ and respect for vote.

Sanctity of vote can be maintained if rulers make themselves accountable and not above the law. In a true democratic country, prime minister or president step down even on mere allegations or called snap polls in case they lost majority.

On the other hand, ‘sanctity’ is also violated when some non- representative powers try to change the government or manipulate elections through political engineering.

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

Twitter: @MazharAbbasGEO