Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Sikandar Sultan Raja has asked parliament to approve laws enabling it to set a date for the general elections in separate letters to National Assembly Speaker Raja Pervez Ashraf and Senate Chairman Sadiq Sanjrani during this season of notes and letters.
The organisation that is in charge of actually conducting the polls is justified in stating once again that it needs assistance and support in order to carry out its duties. Without it, how can the ECP verify that the requirements of honesty, justice, and fairness outlined in Article 218(2) of the constitution are met? Part of the current argument in Punjab about elections has been whether the Supreme Court could offer such explicit instructions about how and when polls should be held.
The ECP clearly believes its jurisdiction is being infringed upon. While legal opinion remains divided on this subject, the ECP has declared that under the constitution, it is the sole arbitrator to determine whether or not favourable circumstances exist to hold elections. This could have been triggered by the Supreme Court’s decision to announce elections in Punjab on May 14 and provide a date, making the ECP’s job appear somewhat redundant, though there have been comments that the schedule of any election is the ECP’s jurisdiction.
The dilemma that Pakistan has been grappling with for decades is the thin red line between institutional jurisdictions. For far too long, the country has witnessed institutions asserting their right to comment in areas where they lack competence or authority. The ECP has also emphasised the president’s role in setting a date for elections in the event of an assembly dissolution, claiming that such a measure is not supported by any constitutional provision.
While constitutional lawyers might discuss this endlessly, the truth remains that the ECP’s letter raises questions that, if ignored, will only make matters murkier. The inclusion of the Daska byelection, for example, is noteworthy. A constitutional authority charged with holding elections that feels impotent does not instill trust in the democratic process.
However, it must be emphasised that none of this means that the constitutionally imposed maximum of 90 days for elections can be waived. What this means is that inserting additional positions within the constitution undermines the spirit of Pakistan’s guiding legal framework.
There is no doubt that elections must be held within 90 days, as specified by the constitution, but this does not mean that the constitution is being rewritten to provide new positions to persons who did not have a mandate in this regard. It also does not imply that the ECP can be openly threatened whenever any party believes its point of view is not being properly respected. The threats made by PTI leaders to ECP members over the last two months are public knowledge. No political party or person may intimidate or threaten ECP members into doing what they want.
The ECP should have full autonomy to conduct elections but should not be subjected to any pressure or threats. It is critical for ECP members to have a safe and conducive environment in which to hold elections free of external intervention and intimidation. It is also critical for the ECP to obtain the funding it needs to hold elections. This chapter in our political history desperately needs to be closed. To clear away cobwebs, concerns, and reservations, an intra- and inter-institutional discourse may be required. For the sake of our common destiny, every institutional stakeholder in the country needs to take a step back and learn about constitutional powers and restrictions.
