Autonomy for the commission
The mere occurrence of elections, we are tutored, does not imply the presence of democracy. There is more to democracy than elections. It is, in fact, a process, which, if left to itself, constantly corrects itself far better than any attempt at benevolent, intelligent design by non-representative authoritarians. Part of the eventual desired ideals are a free (and fair) media, an educated electorate, citizens’ vigilance, the independence of the judiciary, robust political parties etc.
Discussions of the above usually come about when third world republics carry out polls only to elect autocrats; such democracies might even have international polling observers who testify the impartiality of the process but still yield majoritarian dictators.
But such debates are the luxury of states that actually do have periodic polls. At the very basic, having free and fair elections are an achievement in their own right for states that are beset with monarchic histories, ethnic conflicts, ideological upheavals or praetorian settings. The maintenance and strengthening of the polling machinery in a government cannot be overstated.
The Election Commission of Pakistan’s recent summary to the PM secretariat demanding full financial autonomy should be considered seriously. From financial autonomy and the ability to make human resource decisions stem the independence of an organisation, be it the election commission or a local municipal corporation. The issue of the tenure of the commission’s chief is also a recurring one. A suitably lengthy term is a means to ensure much thought is put into electoral reform and then executed properly.
There is no task more noble, more humbling than seeking out votes from one’s peers. The government owes it to the republic for this noble task not only to be free, fair and impartial but also to be seen to be free, fair and impartial. An independence of the election commission and its allied machinery would be a step in that direction.