Proving rigging

The judicial commission set up to probe alleged rigging in the 2013 elections has started its deliberations. Reportedly the 21 political parties that have approached the commission have been issued a questionnaire that requires them to come up with solid and concrete evidence to prove that the elections were stolen through systematic rigging as a result of a conspiracy and also to identity who orchestrated it and how it was implemented.
Media reports about the proceedings of the commission so far suggest that almost all the parties are finding it difficult to formulate their responses to the specific questions put by the commission to them. Why they find themselves in this quagmire is not difficult to understand. Hurling allegations in the public rallies, jumping on the bandwagon of orchestrated movements as a show of solidarity or to use shoulders of others to assuage political grudges can be indulged in with relish but when it come to proving those allegations and rationales behind it in the court of law, it is a different ball game altogether.
Even the main accuser and the party instrumental to the formation of the judicial commission has as yet not come up with any evidence to sustain and prove its allegations of systematic rigging. It is perhaps pertinent to point out that almost all the parties after the elections, including the PTI, had accepted the overall outcome of the 2013 general elections and wherever they found some irregularities or perceived rigging, their candidates filed petitions with the election tribunal, the legal forum to address such complaints.
And no party, not even the PTI, raised the issue of massive rigging in the elections and filed only 58 electoral petitions with the election tribunals within the stipulated period. The election tribunals have reportedly decided 367 petitions out of the 411 that they received. Out of the decided cases 154 have been dismissed on grounds of technical inadequacies, 25 dismissed due to non-prosecution, 30 dismissed as withdrawn, 25 dismissed due to non-prosecution and 112 dismissed after complete trial. Only 44 petitions have been accepted.
Out of the 58 petitions filed by the PTI, 39 have been dismissed and only two accepted by the tribunals. The foregoing facts constitute strong legal evidence negating the impression of a massive and systematic rigging. The acceptance of 44 petitions, however, does point out some malpractices and rigging at the level of the individual candidates.
Another very crucial point to be noted about the rigging allegations by the PTI is that it raised the issue a year after the notification of the elections results. Even an internal report compiled by the party to ascertain reasons for its defeat in the elections mostly focused on the party’s faulty election strategy and did not hint about systematic rigging in the elections.
It is also an irrefutable reality that the international agencies that monitored the 2013 elections, and the Free And Fair Election Network (Fafen) and Pakistan Institute of Legislative Development and Transparency (Pildat), in their reports while pointing out a myriad of procedural, administrative infirmities and malpractices and violation of election rules, never questioned the overall outcome of the elections. Fafen and Pildat are credible independent agencies that have been monitoring elections in Pakistan; the latter has compiled reports on almost all the elections held in Pakistan since 1970. According to Pildat, polling day rigging in the 2013 elections was very low; a ranting refutation of Imran’s claims.
The questionnaire given to the parties demands specific answers and proofs which, according to a statement by Qamar Zaman Kaira of the PPP, no party actually has. That probably is the case with most parties, which have ostensibly jumped on the bandwagon either in a show of solidarity with the PTI or out of grudge against the ruling party. Proving systematic rigging is indeed a tough ask.
The matter is in the hands of the very competent judges of the judicial commission who enjoy the faith and confidence of all the political forces, including the PTI whose chairman has repeatedly said that his party would ungrudgingly accept the findings of the commission and there would be no-sits after that. The commission is a better judge of what it is required to do and what kind of evidence it needs to draw its conclusions in consonance with its TORs and who needs to be called for recording evidence to substantiate the rigging allegations or otherwise.
The commission should also record the statements of all those against whom Imran Khan has been hurling allegations of playing a role in the alleged rigging; take into consideration the reports compiled by Fafen and Pildat and also have an incisive look at the decisions given by the election tribunals as pieces of evidence. The commission has been tasked to unravel the truth about a very crucial issue. Its findings will have a profound impact on the future political landscape of the country.
It is, therefore, hoped that the commission would thoroughly consider all the relevant evidence and explore all avenues to come up with the right conclusions. Whatever the final verdict of the judicial commission, one hopes that all the political parties wil accept it without any reservations.
The writer is a freelance contributor.
Email: ashpak10@gmail.com