As the election process comes to an end, there is a growing public discourse over caretaker governments and their usefulness in Pakistan’s political landscape.
The unsatisfactory performance of the temporary system that presided over last month’s general elections has been the main cause of this discussion. The caretaker system was called for to be eliminated in a recent Senate discussion, with legislators arguing that it was inappropriate for a parliamentary democracy. Additionally, some media sources claim that the PPP and PML-N have resolved to do away with the caretaker system. It is important to keep in mind both Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif supported the concept of a “neutral caretaker government” in the 2006 Charter of Democracy in order to conduct free and fair elections. It seems that developments in Pakistani politics in the years after the signing of the Charter have caused both parties to reevaluate their stances.
The 1973 Constitution had no mention of a caretaker setup for conducting elections. The notion came about as a result of the scandal involving the widely perceived to have been manipulated 1977 polls. However, save from a few, the majority of caretaker governments in the nation have fallen short in their fundamental duty of holding impartial elections that are acknowledged by all. The previous caretaker government has come under heavy fire, with the main complaints being that it overreached itself and failed to create fair playing conditions.
In other well-established democracies, caretaker arrangements are uncommon; instead, the current government enters “caretaker mode,” subject to limitations to guarantee openness.
Two instances in our area come to mind: Bangladesh instituted the caretaker system but later abandoned it. Still, elections held under the current administration have hardly been free. On the other hand, because the Indian Election Commission has the necessary authority, India has conducted regular general elections without the need for a temporary setup and with little controversy. Before making a decision, the incoming parliament should thoroughly discuss the idea of doing away with the caretaker system. Although it is evident that the current system is failing, it is possible that this is due to the ECP’s shortcomings and its incapacity to conduct surveys that all sides deem appropriate.
Although the ECP has been given more authority on paper, in practice, especially in the polls conducted last month, its performance has been underwhelming.
Politicians have the key to significant electoral reform. To ensure that there are no serious grievances over the polling process, they need to strengthen their mutual trust and give the ECP more authority. In the event that they succeed in doing so during the current legislative session, a caretaker may not be necessary for the upcoming general elections. Although there shouldn’t be a continuous reversal of the constitution, laws can be changed to address the main issues with Pakistan’s voting system.