The Government of Pakistan early in February stopped the
Washington-based International Republican Institute (IRI) from performing
exit polls on the February 18 general elections. Consequently, the
institute, headed by US Senator John McCain, reversed a decision to send
election observers for the polls. It was the only US group planning to
send observers although European teams still plan to be in place.
According to an IRI poll in September 2006, Musharraf had
a 63 per cent approval rating. But last October 11, the IRI released a
poll showing him down at 21 per cent. Thirteen days later, an official
letter arrived, telling the IRI that it was not possible to register the
group in Pakistan "due to administrative reasons".
Why was the IRI stopped from conducting the exit polls?
The reason appears obvious. The government of President (retd General)
Pervez Musharraf does not want exit polls to challenge ‘doctored’ official
election results.
To digress from the subject, General Musharraf was
re-elected as president for five years in October last by a parliament
whose term expired a month later. Just to refresh your memories, he was
chief of army staff when he sought re-election and resigned from the army
post only after the controversial re-election which saw many
parliamentarians quitting and boycotting the election because
constitutionally, a serving general was not eligible to stand for
president.
Not surprisingly, popular perceptions about the integrity
of the electoral process in Pakistan are dismal. Only 21 per cent of the
country’s voting age population believes elections in the country are free
and fair, a percentage that is among the lowest in the world. In a Gallup
International study of around 60 countries, Pakistan is ahead of only the
Philippines (19 per cent) and Nigeria (nine per cent) in this regard.
According to Pakistan’s Citizens Group on Electoral
Process (CGEP), the past eight elections, from 1970 to 2002, have been
marred by rigging in three phases: pre-poll, polling day and post-poll.
Pre-poll rigging refers to a deliberate attempt to
selectively tilt the rules of a level playing field in favour of or
against any contestant. It includes violation of constitutional
requirements such as: 1) Neutrality of the caretaker government; 2)
Independence of the election commission and related judiciary; 3)
Neutrality of the election administration staff; 4) Violation of freedom
of media to approach voters; and 5) Use of public resources to benefit
some contestants and/or hurt others, including politically partisan use of
development funds through various government agencies such as utility
organisations (electricity, gas) and local bodies.
Polling day rigging refers to violation of the integrity
(honesty) of the ballot box. It includes: tampering with/stuffing ballot
boxes; impersonation and multiple voting; prevention of voting by certain
persons or groups through unlawful means, including coercion; dishonest
counting of votes and dishonest tabulation of results.
Post-poll rigging refers to the absence of fair play in
the formation of a government according to popular mandate. It includes
the use of public resources (in violation of constitutional provisions) to
influence, affect or alter the formation of government. This is
particularly acute when the above is done to support the formation of a
government by those undeserving according to the will of the people or to
demolish a government by those who are upheld by the will of the people.
President Musharraf has already completed the first phase
of election rigging. In November 2007 he imposed emergency rule. One of
the first steps Musharraf took under emergency rule was to replace Chief
Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry whom he had initially tried to dismiss
in March 2007. He sacked dozens of independent-minded judges. Musharraf
then moved to crack down on the media, lawyers, social activists and
secular and religious political opponents. Under domestic and
international pressure, he rescinded the state of emergency but the harsh
measures remained in force.
There can be no two opinions on the fact that without an
independent judiciary and a free media, fair and free elections will not
be possible. There is a popular demand to restore all sacked judges.
However, the US has declined to support popular demand for the restoration
of an independent judiciary. Assistant secretary of state Richard Boucher
told a congressional panel on January 29 that Pakistan could deal with the
dispute involving the judiciary after the elections as it was important to
hold the elections first. Tellingly, Boucher admitted that there would be
rigging in the elections. "We don’t necessarily accept a certain level of
fraud but if history is any guide and current reports are any guide we
should expect some," Boucher told the law-makers.
The last general election of 2002 witnessed unparalleled
heights of pre-poll and post-poll rigging. In order to perpetuate the rule
of General Pervez Musharraf, a number of illegal rules were framed. Since
the country was practically governed under an extra-constitutional
arrangement, there was no concern about ensuring a level playing field,
neutrality of the administration or independence of the election
commission. To this extent, the pre-poll partisan role of the state was a
continuation of previous unlawful practice but the 2002 election carried
it a step further by engaging a sizeable number of military officials,
local government functionaries and other public servants to play an openly
political role at the grass roots. Similarly, post-poll interference with
the electoral process was massive. In no other election in Pakistan, with
the possible exception of 1970 when the electoral result was totally
overturned, was the electoral outcome disturbed as ruthlessly and
unlawfully as in 2002. This was done through systematic use of rewards,
punishments and intimidation by the state apparatus under the leadership
of General Pervez Musharraf.
A rigged election (in 2008) would have serious
consequences for domestic stability and regional and wider international
security, says the Brussels-based International Crisis Group (ICG). In
2002 the military government rigged the elections and was able to survive
with its power, if not legitimacy, intact. This year opposition to
centralised, authoritarian rule has grown considerably, particularly in
the smaller provinces. To neutralise this, the government will be more
dependent than ever on the most problematic of its civilian partners.
In Sindh, for example, it will have little alternative for
countering Bhutto’s Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) and its predominantly
Sindhi constituency other than to use the electoral machinery to favour
its MQM (Muttahida (formerly Mohajir) Quami Movement) allies. This would
further stoke Mohajir-Sindhi tensions, already high after the May 12, 2007
killings of PPP workers by MQM activists. An MQM government in Sindh, in
coalition with Musharraf’s ruling party, would not only fuel anti-military
sentiments but could well return the province to bloody ethnic conflict.
In Balochistan, where the military’s attempts to crush
demands for democracy and provincial rights have triggered a province-wide
insurgency, the prospects for the Baloch regional parties to win a free
and fair election and form the provincial government have increased
considerably. Rigged elections could seriously strain the cohesion of the
federation even as they benefit the Islamist parties. The Baloch
nationalist parties already have an uphill task to convince their young
workers that political change can and should come through the ballot box,
not the gun. Should the election be rigged, that choice may no longer
appear viable to many Baloch dissidents who have borne the brunt of
military rule for eight years, the ICG report concluded.
In the NWFP (North-West Frontier Province) too, the
government will have little choice but to give its allies free rein to
manipulate the electoral process if it is to retain their support not just
in the province but also in the national parliament.
However, a distorted and rigged electoral process will not
ensure regime stability let alone national cohesion. The parliamentary
elections are crucial for Pakistan’s long-term viability as a democratic
state. If they are free and fair, they will restore public faith in state
institutions and constitutional and legal ways of changing governments.
(Abdus Sattar Ghazali is executive editor of the online
magazine, American Muslim Perspective, www.amperspective.com;
Email: [email protected].)