By Sardar Khan Niazi

The appointment of a Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) is too important to be reduced to another contest between the government and the opposition. At a time when political polarization has already weakened public confidence in institutions, the continuing deadlock over such a critical constitutional appointment is deeply troubling. The government and the opposition must recognize that the Election Commission of Pakistan is not an instrument of either side. Its credibility depends fundamentally on the perception that it can act independently, impartially and without political influence. Any prolonged dispute over the appointment of its head risks reinforcing precisely the doubts that both sides should be seeking to dispel. There is, therefore, an urgent need for political sanity. The relevant constitutional mechanism exists to encourage consultation, not confrontation. While disagreement over suitable candidates is legitimate, negotiations cannot become an excuse for paralysis. Both sides should approach the process with the understanding that the person eventually appointed will oversee an institution whose decisions affect every political party. The government, as the holder of executive authority, carries a particular responsibility to demonstrate openness and flexibility. The opposition, meanwhile, must resist the temptation to turn every institutional appointment into a battlefield. Neither side gains from weakening the credibility of the electoral system. Indeed, political parties that may be in government today could find themselves in opposition tomorrow. A credible Chief Election Commissioner is especially important in a political environment where allegations of electoral unfairness can quickly deepen mistrust. Elections are not merely about the casting and counting of votes; they are also about whether citizens and political actors believe that the rules were applied fairly. The perception of neutrality is therefore almost as important as the formal independence of the Election Commission. The parliamentary leadership should consequently widen the search for consensus rather than narrow it around partisan preferences. A candidate of established integrity, professional competence and demonstrable independence should be the priority. Personal loyalties and short-term political calculations must not determine an appointment whose consequences extend well beyond the tenure of any one government. Political parties should also remember that democratic institutions acquire strength through repeated examples of responsible behavior. If every disagreement ends in a stalemate, constitutional procedures become hollow and public frustration grows. Conversely, a willingness to compromise on matters of national institutional importance can help restore some measure of confidence in the political process. The appointment of the Chief Election Commissioner should thus be treated as an opportunity rather than another source of confrontation. Government and opposition have a shared interest in ensuring that the electoral watchdog commands broad public confidence. They should return to the negotiating table, engage seriously and agree on a figure who is seen as above partisan politics. Pakistan’s democratic system can ill afford another institutional impasse. At a moment when political tensions are already high, cooperation over the appointment of the Chief Election Commissioner would send a modest but important message: that even bitter political rivals can put the credibility of the democratic process ahead of immediate partisan advantage. That is not weakness. It is the minimum sanity that the country’s political landscape requires.