The incumbent government is insisting on the use of electronic voting machines in the next general election because it considers it the only solution for free, fair and transparent elections. The opposition is blatantly opposing the use of EVMs and criticizing the move as a pre-planned attempt to secure a majority in upcoming elections. The Election Commission of Pakistan is also hesitant in adopting the change and resisting the idea.
In short, the government, opposition and the ECP are at loggerheads over its use. The PTI government in its attempt to reform the electoral process invited the opposition several times but every time it has received a cold shoulder from the opposition.
On the other hand, the ECP has also raised 37 objections to the introduction of EVMs. The government ministers, specially Fawad Chaudhary and Azam Swati, are locking horns with the ECP over the matter. They have accused the ECP of taking bribes and siding with the opposition. In return, the ECP has served notices to them and rejected the government allegations.
The war of words between these three stakeholders is at its peak and no one seems to hold back. But, before we move further we have to decide whether the change in voting method is inevitable or not.
The only solution to the current turmoil is the debate and cooperation of all stakeholders. They should collaborate and sit together for a greater cause, because we cannot achieve political stability and democratic solidarity without a solid foundation that is-smooth transition of power through free, fair and transparent elections
The General elections of 1977 and 2018 were almost 41 years apart. One aspect that is common in these two elections is rigging allegations. Not only that, every election in between has been marred by rigging allegations. After every election, we hear voices of stolen mandate, systematic rigging and establishment involvement. So a change is needed.
Similarly, other aspects that demand change are the number of rejected votes in every election, the questionable role of the presiding officer and the manual vote counting procedure. For example, there were 35 constituencies in the 2013 general election and 30 constituencies in the 2018 election where the rejected votes were greater than the winning margin.
Similarly, a whopping 1.67 million and 1.5 million rejected votes in the 2018 and 2013 general elections respectively also present a case for change in voting method. If the above-mentioned figures do not make a case for the change then I wonder what will.
Among the objections raised by the opposition, one is that its use has not gone well with other democracies and only a few use it at a national level. But is this argument worth enough to oppose the use of EVMs?
Here, it should be noted that the opposition is supporting a voting technique that has been tested by time and has not created a lasting impact while it is opposing a system that has been even adopted yet.
Every state should adopt a system that is best suited to its interests rather than relying on the experience of other countries. Why can’t we have a system that suits our needs and requirements? If the use of EVMs can bring change in the electoral process and deal with the problem of rigging and rejected votes, then it should be adopted open-heartedly.
We can no longer live under the tags “restoration of democracy”, democracy in its infancy”. The transition of power (with all flaws) has been taking place democratically and the third consecutive elected government will complete its term in 2023. It is high time now to do away with the hurdles in the process.
A free and fair election is the essence of democracy and only a democratically elected government with a true mandate can work for the development of the state.
The current EVM imbroglio has not only dented the image of the ECP of Pakistan as a free and fair authority but also exposed the lack of debating culture in Parliament. It has also put the credibility of EVMs at stake even before their use. The opposition’s continuous refusal to sit together and debate on the issue has also raised fingers on its role which has been whimsical rather than constructive. This has made a step in the right direction controversial.
The PTI government might be able to complete the legislative process through a joint session of Parliament as directed by the Islamabad High court, but will the use of EVMs deliver the desired results?
The whole exercise of introducing EVMs has a specific purpose, that is to deal with the problem of election rigging, especially poll-day rigging, but in the light of the current debate on the use of EVMs one can carefully predict that the desired outcome will not be achieved, unless all stakeholders sit together, participate in the debate and agree on it.
Albeit it seems difficult, but if the government succeeds in conducting the 2023 general election with EVMs, will the voices of allegations and rigging not be heard given the size of the trust deficit?
It does not seem so. The opposition, as expected, will not accept the result if the results go against them. The whole exercise will be a total waste of time and money. The billions of rupees spent on the project will go in vain without any desired outcome.
If EVMs are introduced now and all stakeholders are not a hundred percent satisfied and on one page then it might be a fulfilment of the electoral reforms promise of the PTI, but not a long-term initiative. Here the government should act wisely and should not act in haste.
To the government’s credit, they have at least taken the initiative to solve the problem. But, the opposition’s role is discouraging rather than constructive.
The only solution to the current turmoil is the debate and cooperation of all stakeholders. They should collaborate and sit together for a greater cause, because we cannot achieve political stability and democratic solidarity without a solid foundation that is-smooth transition of power through free, fair and transparent elections.
