Baulking at the prospects

A blundering, blubbering odyssey to political strife

I thought it would take some time for the PML-N to get back to its bad, old habits. Obviously, I was wrong. The monumental faux pas concerning the presidential election and the unnecessary controversy it has created is a case in point.

Just to remind the people, Pakistan came into existence on the 27th of Ramadan, but the Quaid did not appeal to the British to either delay or advance the date to another day.

The sequence of events leading up to the election fiasco makes an interesting, even mind-boggling read. First, the letter from the National Assembly speaker regarding the holding of the presidential election caught the Chief Election Commissioner in deep slumber. It is age and its debilitating effects, folks, nothing else.

When the ECP people finally got moving, they were slow to take off – understandably not too well-versed in the rules and the time-frame governing the holding of the presidential election. Under article 41, sub-clause 4 of the constitution, the “election to the office of the President shall be held not earlier than sixty days and not later than thirty days before the expiration of the term of the President in office”. In actual effect, the ECP had between July 6 and August 6 to hold the election, but there was no bar on it to start the election-related proceedings before July 6. In their unmatched wisdom, that’s exactly what they did not do and, as a consequence, they fixed August 6 as the date of the election – absolutely the last day allowed under the rules. Together with that, they announced the election schedule and the political parties started gearing up to win support from the electoral-college.

It is then that the PML-N lobbed the bombshell. Understandably, holding the election on August 6 did not suit the prime minister’s fancy. The excuse forwarded was that, on this day, a large number of people would either be away to perform Umra, or they would be in Aitekaf. So, he ordered his minions to ask the ECP to advance the date of the election.

True to tradition, the ECP shied away from taking a decision and recommended that the matter be referred to the Supreme Court (SC). Like I said, it is age, folks, nothing else. The important thing to note here is that, by this time, smelling a conspiratorial move, murmurings of discontent had started emanating from the opposition parties. The government should have heeded the noise and stopped there. But, it did not suit the fancy of the king and the master. He was bent on having it his way – irrespective!

A senior member of the party moved the SC praying that the date of the presidential election be advanced to July 30. Instead of remanding the matter back to the ECP in whose exclusive jurisdiction it fell to take the decision, the SC proceeded summarily to adjudicate in the matter – and that, too, without listening to the other stakeholders. It ordered the ECP to advance the date of the election from August 6 to July 30.

Left with little manoeuvrability, PPP announced that it was boycotting the presidential election stating that “the decision was part of our struggle against the military as well as civil dictatorship and to save democracy”. It further vowed: “We boycott the election only to save the federation”.

There was still time for good sense to have prevailed. Judging the sensitivity of the matter and the absolute necessity for all political parties to have participated in the election process for the office of the president, the prime minister should have immediately intervened. Instead, various functionaries of his party went on the rampage with the prime minister himself leading the charge calling the PPP boycott “against democratic traditions”.

The lesser minions started talking about the numbers game insinuating that the PPP was going to lose the election in any case and that it was trying to save face by staying away. That may well be, but it was not a propitious time to have come out with an aggressive charge, thus rendering the entire election process controversial.

Many questions come to mind. Why did the ECP have to pick the last date of the stipulated period allowed to them as the date for holding the presidential election? Why did the ECP announce the date without taking the stakeholders on board? When the government moved the ECP to advance the date of the election, why didn’t it take the requisite decision? When the ruling party moved the SC, why didn’t the apex court remand the matter back to the ECP? If the SC deemed it necessary to adjudicate in the matter, why didn’t it listen to the other stakeholders before announcing the judgement?

A few other issues also deserve a comment. The undue involvement of religion in handling matters of the state has become untenably dangerous. If this had been a stake back in 1947, it may well have jeopardised the very creation of Pakistan. Wisdom prevailed then, but it is decidedly found missing now.

Equally important is the question mark that is being raised regarding the conduct of the SC. It has been increasingly obvious that it is over-extending its constitutional mandate as a matter of routine which is creating unnecessary issues. There had already been much speculation regarding the perceived complicity between the judiciary, the ECP and one political party that has been returned to power as a consequence of the May 11 elections. Rather than getting further embroiled in any election controversy, the SC needed to act with greater wisdom and with an enhanced level of impartiality. Unfortunately, it not only failed to do so, it has gone to the other extreme – of announcing a one-sided judgment even without listening to all the stakeholders. It has rendered itself controversial which would cloud its credibility in the future.

The PTI’s decision to take part in the election process smacks of short-sightedness and internal divisions. One understands that a majority of people wanted to boycott the election process, but a minority managed to prevail by creating the fear that such a decision would lead to it being bracketed with the PPP. This is by far the most untenable and frivolous basis for taking a major political decision regarding participation in the presidential election.

The ill-effects of this division have already started showing. PML-N, being an overwhelmingly Punjabi party, – which is another reason why it was absolutely imperative for it to have all the stakeholders on board in the presidential election – and in its desperation to have partners from other provinces, bee-lined for 90 Azizabad to win support. The MQM announced that it’ll not only participate in the presidential election, it’ll extend ‘unconditional’ support to the PML-N candidate who also hails from Karachi and is a ‘mohajir’. This is as far as unprincipled politics can stretch. Abusing each other profusely yesterday, they are the best of buddies today. I received something in the mail stating that the “MQM is like a seasonal girlfriend whose boyfriend is always a ruling party”. Wow!

The presidential election is not about a question of numbers. It is about a question of credibility. It is not about who wins – which is rather obvious. It is about how he wins. If the presidential election is held on July 30 – as appears it would be – it would be a controversial election the results of which may pose dangers for the unity of the federation. Instead of being overtly consumed with the desire to win the election at all costs, the ruling party should look at all the options it can exercise to take the element of conflict out of a purely democratic exercise.

The ECP may have erred. The SC may have erred. But the responsibility for making the election process non-controversial and ensuring the participation of all stakeholders rests on the shoulders of the prime minister. He needs to restrain his whims and act as a democratic leader. He should intervene and ensure that he has all political parties on board in the election process to establish its inviolable credibility. Failing that, there would be serious question marks about his democratic credentials. A division at this juncture would render the office of the president controversial. It’ll expose the federation to unnecessary strains which it may not be able to sustain. As I have repeatedly said in the past, the prime minister seems to be in a hurry to hasten the prospect of his alienation. A controversial house of the president will come back to haunt him. Sadly, what appears to be missing is not a commodity that can be bought with the illicitly accumulated billions. Elementary, my dear Watson!

The writer is a political strategist. He can be reached at [email protected]