Unreasonable demands of PTI

The party should not expect the government to do what is beyond its reach

The success of parleys and dialogue between two parties trying to reconcile their opposing positions depends essentially on flexibility and the honesty of purpose shown by both of them to resolve the issue in the larger national interest. This element regrettably has been missing in the on-going process of negotiations between the government and PTI in regards to the formation of the judicial commission and the terms of reference for it, more so on the part of the PTI who contrary to its publicly announced stance on systematic rigging in the 2013 polls, is now insisting on selective probe of rigging charges in a few constituencies earmarked by PTI, maintaining that if the rigging in those constituencies was proved as a result of the findings of the commission, then it should be construed as the entire election having been rigged.

It is pertinent to mention that Imran Khan has been persistently asserting that different players including former CJ, ECP, ROs, PML-N, former COAS, MI and caretaker government in Punjab were part of a conspiracy to steal the mandate of his party for the benefit of PML-N. The government keeping in view the allegations wants to pose a question to the commission: Was there a systematic and concerted plan or conspiracy to manipulate the 2013 elections for or against any political party in connivance with the ECP, former members of the judiciary, ROs, caretakers or any other person?

The deadlock therefore is attributable to the somersault taken by the PTI on its earlier stance and the bizarre logic to apply the findings of a few selected constituencies on the whole electoral exercise. As against it the position taken by the government is quite realistic and reflective of the genuine desire to have the veracity of the whole elections tested to settle the issue to the satisfaction of all the stakeholders. Why the PTI is now running away from its publicly stated position is because its leadership knows in the heart of its hearts that there was no conspiracy to rig the elections and they would not be able to sustain or prove their allegations before the judicial commission.

The PTI leadership may have been advised by their legal minds to retract on the issue and if they have, then they have not rendered a proper advice keeping in view the constitutional provisions pertaining to the issue. If they ask probe into a specific number of constituencies by the judicial commission, the constitution does not allow this as under article 225 complaints about rigging and irregularities in specific constituencies can only be heard and disposed of by the Election Tribunals. This point has been repeatedly emphasised by the SC in its decisions regarding rigging in the 2013 elections. That probably is the reason why the SC has not so far formed the judicial commission in spite of the request of the government.

However the government with a view to pacify the PTI and with the honesty of purpose to have the issue resolved amicably to ensure political stability in the country, has agreed to even bring an ordinance to provide for a judicial forum to meet the demands of PTI. The constitutional expert believe that even the judicial commission formed through an ordinance would not have the constitutional backing for probing into specific number of constituencies. However it could investigate the alleged conspiracy about rigging. One is even not sure whether the SC would allow any judicial body to be established under a Presidential Ordinance in the presence of Article 225 of the Constitution and its earlier decisions on the issue.

Ostensibly the issue being agitated by PTI has no legal or constitutional basis. It is demanding of the government which it is not in a position to concede due to the constitutional constraints. Raising the issue after fourteen month of the elections is clearly an after-thought with political motives rather than a genuine and honest move to have a wrong rectified. The PTI, it may be mentioned, filed 30 electoral petitions with the Election Tribunals alleging rigging and irregularities in those particular constituencies immediately after the conduct of the elections, which clearly meant that the rest of the candidates had accepted their defeats ungrudgingly. Out of these thirty petitions, nineteen so far have been decided against the PTI candidates.

These facts clearly give lie to claims of Imran Khan that his mandate was stolen through a conspiracy. It is interesting to note that a report of the party compiled on the causes of the defeat of the party in 2013 election also made no mention of the systematic rigging. The claim of Imran Khan that reason for his agitation was that he was not given justice is also not borne out by the ground realities. The Election Tribunals did entertain PTI petitions and also gave their verdicts on them. When Imran Khan knocked at door of SC, the apex court did justice by reminding him that the proper forum for electoral complaints were the Election Tribunals. The Election Tribunal probing irregularities in NA-122 did call Imran Khan and also gave a verdict for the recount in some polling stations of the constituency. It is true that the Elections Tribunals have not disposed of electoral petitions within the stipulated time of four month as required under Political Parties Act 1976, but this delay was not only in case of PTI petitions but also in regards to the petitions of other parties.

The PTI must adopt a reasonable attitude if it really wants to resolve the issue, in recognition and appreciation of the constitutional constraints. The government cannot meet its demands beyond the pale of the constitution and in case some amendments in the constitution are needed to accommodate demands of PTI, it will require the agreement of all the parties represented in the Parliament and not just the government, which might be a difficult proposition altogether. The better course for Imran Khan to extricate himself and the government from the present stalemate on the TORs for the judicial commission would be to accept the proposal preferred by the government which was not only in conformity with its publicly taken position, but also constitutionally feasible.