The scapegoats

Sins of omission and commission

“I’m being punished for Returning Officers’ failure”, Saad Rafique.

It came as a major shock to the PML-N when its Railways Minister Khawaja Saad Rafique was unseated by an Election Tribunal. The Tribunal accused the returning and presiding officers for messing up the election in NA-125. But is that the only reason behind the problem?

The verdict is largely an indictment of the returning officer (RO). It was found that the RO did not prepare the list of polling personnel himself, did not get the same approved 15 days before the polls, and changed the list of polling personnel a few days before the polls without permission of the Election Commission. In other cases the RO failed to provide the correct electoral rolls for two booths, depriving voters of their right to franchise, received statements of vote counts from presiding officers without their signatures and thumb impressions, prepared the consolidated statement i.e., the final results without opening the polling bags and without summoning the ballot papers excluded from count as well as the challenged votes.

The judgment said the RO also sent incomplete polling bags. At some stations these lacked ballot papers, counterfoils and electoral rolls. Statements of counts were not prepared in accordance with laws and ballot papers were put into polling bags without sealing the envelops and by mixing records of national and provincial constituencies.

What the RO did in NA-125 has, in all likelihood, been done by some of the other ROs in other constituencies. The judgment caused panic in the PML-N leadership leading it to challenge the verdict in the Supreme Court. Election Tribunal’s judgment had to be challenged, said Ahsan Iqbal, “as it sets a dangerous precedent, where anyone can record a few irregularities to make the entire election void.”

What the RO did in NA-125 has, in all likelihood, been done by some of the other ROs in other constituencies. The judgment caused panic in the PML-N leadership leading it to challenge the verdict in the Supreme Court

As Imran Khan said, the evidence for rigging is in the ballot bags. But does anything found in the bags constitute a solid proof of organised rigging?

Initially, the PTI had hinted at bribe having played a role but the charge was not pressed because it was difficult to prove. Imran Khan, however, still wants the presiding and returning officers ‘involved in electoral rigging’ to be held accountable. “We will pressurise them (i.e., POs and the RO) to disclose who asked them to rig the elections”.

There are others who consider the RO was simply negligent. Even the Election Tribunal did no ascribe any motive to the officials connected with the election.

Still, others hold the Election Commission responsible for the mess by not providing the ROs necessary guidance well before the elections. There are hints supporting the view even in the post-election report by the ECP published in September last year. It is maintained for instance that while the handbook for DROs and ROs covered most of the necessary information and guidance for the polling day, they had been provided with these books very late. What is more, the ROs received their appointment notifications 15 days before the elections and the deadline given for finalisation of the polling scheme had abruptly been shortened.

Indications of a lack of proper orientation were sufficiently visible when the ROs interviewed the candidates to decide whether to accept or reject their nomination papers. The religious parties and many in the PML-N and PTI applauded as candidates were asked humiliating questions to prove they were not up to Article 62 and 63. The case of the rejection of well-known columnist and former PML-N legislator Ayaz Amir should have opened the eyes of the politicians but it didn’t.

The ROs had full authority to accept or reject nomination papers of contesting candidates. Article 62 of the Constitution, it was maintained, empowered Returning Officers to ask questions related to religion as the Article clearly stated that a legislator must have adequate knowledge of Islam. The provisions of Article 62 and 63 lack precision and could be interpreted differently by different ROs. This caused inconsistencies in the scrutiny process.

The type of questions asked during the scrutiny of nomination papers revealed the extremist mindset of some of the ROs who had been fed on the Zia era text books that promoted religiosity, narrow mindedness and intolerance. They asked the candidates questions related to their religious beliefs and practices and whether they could recite certain Quranic Suras and the wording of the National Anthem. Others asked questions about the candidates’ personal lives, like the number of their marriages and their daily expenses. Some ridiculed the candidates who failed to answer these questions by deliberately allowing media personnel to record their conduct during the scrutiny.

Indications of a lack of proper orientation were sufficiently visible when the ROs interviewed the candidates to decide whether to accept or reject their nomination papers

In a letter sent to the ECP, FBR maintained that the returning officers had been seeking too many details regarding the financial position of the candidates instead of sticking to the salient issues they were supposed to seek information about. The FBR protested against the questions asked and maintained that it was not possible to provide the information being required within a short period.

In what looked like a comedy of errors the ROs applied inconsistent approaches in phrasing questions and varying techniques to assess the candidates’ qualifications and disqualifications under articles 62 and 63 of the constitution. The exercise degenerated into what a Lahore High Court judge called a “witch hunt”.

We now understand that the ECP did not issue specific instructions for undertaking this process. Everything was left to the ROs’ discretion. Even CJ Chaudhry, who addressed the ROs a number of times, did not provide any guideline to them.

Articles 62 and 63 introduced by Zia-ul-Haq as booby traps still remain a part of the constitution. The Parliament has failed to muster the courage to either remove them from the basic law or rephrase them with well-defined and unambiguous criteria. Unless this is done, the problem will arise again in the next elections.

The sins of omission and commission committed by the ECP also caused suspicions about the fairness of the electoral process. Some of these have been pointed out above. Others are being revealed during the judicial commission’s proceedings. The Election Commission failed to follow the laid down procedures. Ballot papers were not printed on stipulated time. The papers therefore could not be supplied to the ROs by the May5 deadline. Interestingly, the ECP didn’t care to seek an explanation from the Punjab Election Commissioner why the material was not delivered in time.

It would therefore be simplistic to put the entire blame on the ROs.