The confession by the Commissioner Rawalpindi that he had helped rig the election in his division, and ordered the conversion of large wins by certain candidates into victories by other candidates had thrown into doubt for even more people the result of the February 8 election, and threaten to cause the same sort of complications that the 1977 PNA Movement did.
Almost as soon as he spoke, there were questions raised about his sanity, then it was also mentioned that he was due to retire in a few weeks, just next month in fact, and was going to parlay his confession into a position in a political party, presumably the PTI, whose candidates he said he had helped defeat. It was also pointed out that he had no role in the elections, not being a District Returning Officer or Returning Officer for any constituency. However, it should not be thought that his claims just came out of the blue. They fed into a stream of claims about the unfairness of the polls.
The results were not at all what were expected by the more cynical: that Mian Nawaz would win. Instead, PTI-backed independents won the most seats in the National Assembly. They didn’t win enough to prevent the formation of a government composed of all the disparate elements apart from them. That is probably why they are claiming that they were robbed of 54 seats. Those seats would suffice to allow them to prevent the formation of any government.
However, the numbers being what they were, everyone else was able to get together, and the PML(N) was able to form a minority government, with PPP backing. There were also agreements on the presidency, the governorships and the presiding officers, all of which would have been possible if Chattha’s claims are true.
If one harks back to 1977, it seems then that there were some similarities, but important differences. One big difference was that the outgoing government had contested the election. Its re-election was at stake. That re-election occurred, and the opposition cried that there had been massive rigging, which had allowed the ruling PPP to obtain a two-thirds majority in the National Assembly.
It should be remembered that the concept of caretaker governments was floated around this time. However, instead of being worn smooth with time, this time around, there has been a clamour about the fairness of the caretaker. In a word, instead of being purely neutral, they are a party. The caretakers had not been accused of rigging on anyone’s behalf, though there was speculation before about particular ministers. However, Mr Chattha’s claim has pointed a smoking gun at the Punjab caretakers at least.
Mr Chattha’s claim cannot be dismissed so easily, for if he was not himself an RO, his subordinates were, including four DROs, whose ACRs he would write. True, there would have to be a paper trail established, of stamped ballots in ballot boxes, because while the result form would establish the result, it would become useless if a recount was not to yield the requisite number of ballots. The recount is not an automatic right, unless the margin of victory falls within a certain narrow band, but if there is suspicion of wrongdoing, it can be ordered. Recounts are usually not ordered, because they involve much effort, and are very tiring. Normally, the ballots are only counted at the polling station, and the polling station results transmitted to the RO, who adds up all the results received, and sends a result to the ECP, which then declares it.
As in 2018, there were problems with the transmission of the result by computer. The ECP should accept that it is a horse-and-cart organisation, and should not aspire to anything complicated. It should suffice that it has accepted the printing press, and that ballots are not the shards of broken pottery the ancient Athenians used to use. Anything involving a computer should be eschewed, and quill pens may go on being used. However, one of the advantages of computerization would be that the results could be fixed. The EVMs would have been a boon, and the internet-voting abroad would have been manna from heaven, for anyone wanting to manipulate the results.
How is the matter to be fixed? One way, which the government seems to be following, is to pretend that nothing is happening. Another would be for the winners and losers to talk to one another. In 1977, it was the PPP and PNA. The dispute was twofold: the number of seats on which there should be a re-election, and who would be in office while that re-election was held.
However, the allegations by Mr Chattha are not that simple. All those involved in the rigging must be identified, and brought to book. It is not just the officials that must be penalized. Their motive must also be examined. If necessary, those behind the alleged rigging must also be identified and punished. It seems that it was not merely an offence against the Election Laws, but a full-fledged subversion of the Constitution.
While there were initially 40 seats disputed, the PNA ultimately demanded not just a re-election, but 50 percent representation in the government, with Bhutto stepping down as PM.
As the Constitution had no provision for a caretaker government, Bhutto insisted that he would have to lead the government. At that time, the PM’s death or resignation meant a designated Senior Minister becoming caretaker PM till the House elected a new PM. If Bhutto left office, he would be replaced by the Senior Minister. The problem was that none of the members of the Assembly could be so appointed. The PNA didn’t trust them.
Thus at the moment, it is not clear what the PTI demand is. A re-election? Or only re-election on the impugned seats? Or a vacation of those seats, with new winners being declared elected? In other words, fresh notifications of results. Would that stand up in court, even if the ECP agreed?
In 1977, the talks were between the PPP and the PNA. The ECP was not involved, perhaps because it was a government department. Now, who talks? The PML(N)? It benefited, but who helped it? Not the caretakers. The ECP? The PTI, whose Chairman is in jail? As a matter of fact, the PTI doesn’t even exist officially. It is not likely that this particular problem will be solved by the PTI independents entering into some form of party discipline by entering the Sunni Ittehad Council.
Another factor which is to be considered is that the recount will only take place if a candidate applies, and if the consolidation of the result has not taken place. Once that consolidation has taken place, all that can be done is have a fresh election.
The resignation of the Commissioner must be seen in perspective. He was retiring in a matter of weeks, but the possibility of mental problems cannot be ruled out. That the Commissionerate of such an important division could have mental problems, not particularly hidden ones at that, sheds a poor light on the government. A Commissioner Lahore earned some notoriety for bringing his pet snake to meetings. Clearly, not a normal human being. However, no one did anything. His subordinates did not pass on their concerns, probably because they were terrorised too much to do so.
However, the allegations by Mr Chattha are not that simple. All those involved in the rigging must be identified, and brought to book. It is not just the officials that must be penalized. Their motive must also be examined. If necessary, those behind the alleged rigging must also be identified and punished. It seems that it was not merely an offence against the Election Laws, but a full-fledged subversion of the Constitution.
Of course, one of the problems has been that the alleged rigging was not enough to ensure that a government could be formed. It allowed a hung Parliament, and stopped the PTI obtaining the majority of its dreams.
