Lack of consensus mars Electoral Bill 2017
It is the exception rather than the rule that the government and plethora of parties that brighten (or darken) our political landscape reach an accord on any issue of national importance. Too often minor irritants, ‘cult of the personality’ differences, overblown egos or genuine concerns stand in the way, compounded by the government’s propensity to steamroll a measure through parliament using its brute- force majority. And so is the case of Electoral Reforms Bill 2017, expected to be passed on Tuesday, with many carping critics among the opposition voicing their serious reservations on the final shape of the Bill, which ignores their proposals and concerns.
The Law Minister has stated that ample opportunity was provided to opposition parties to air their views during the long-drawn and intensive debates in the concerned parliamentary committees spread over 129 meetings, and that out of 105 such submissions, 44 were accepted by the government. That is all to the good, but it would appear that some that were ignored, deliberately or otherwise, were the ones that mattered the most in making the outcome of the general elections 2018 acceptable to all the stakeholders. But the Law Minister reiterated that the Bill in its present form would strengthen the Election Commission by providing it full financial and administrative powers.
The opposition qualms revolve broadly from the PTI’S demand for wholesale reconstitution of the present ECP, biometric verification (also the ANP stance) and right of voting for expatriates, to the PPP’s demand for ballot papers with watermark and allowing dual nationals to contest, and the MQM (P)’s emphasis on proper monitoring of the money spent on the campaign trail to encourage middle class candidates. Although beyond the realm of possibility, the government would act wisely if it delayed the passage of the Bill for a short while to achieve consensus on the genuine demands and sensible proposals of the opposition that can ultimately eliminate rigging, confer credibility on the election process and make the result acceptable to both winner and loser. Only then would be the Bill be a ‘living document’.
