Propagation of wrong notions

Courtesy:-  Malik Muhammad Ashraf


The ECP is a constitutional body bound to work within the framework of the constitution and the existing law

The speculations about an interim set-up for a longer period and postponement of elections had hardly died down, when another non-issue has been stoked into a pivot, courtesy a hyper active section of media. A sustained campaign is being run to create doubts about the ability of the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) to hold free and fair elections, in the wake of difference of opinion between the ECP and the government over the changes proposed by the latter in the nomination forms for the candidates and extension in the scrutiny period. It is also being alleged that all political parties represented in parliament, including the major opposition party Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz in collusion with the government are trying to protect the corrupt elements with a view to pave the way for their return to parliament, the government by not agreeing to the proposed changes and the opposition parties by not backing the ECP on the issue. Even two members of the ECP have come out with statements that they wanted to catch the ‘thieves’ but government has thwarted that move. They have also expressed the view that the proposed rules have been sent to the president as a formality and the ECP can go ahead without the approval of the president.


The foregoing notions need a rational evaluation and explained in their proper perspective to remove the misgivings being generated in this regard. A close scrutiny of the Representation of People Act 1976 and Representation of People rules 1977 reveals that the old nomination papers devised for candidates are quite exhaustive in regards to determination of the eligibility of a candidate in terms of fulfiling the qualifications required under the article 62 and 63 of the constitution, including declarations about default on bank loans, non- payment of taxes and utility bills in addition to details about movable and immovable properties held by candidates. These details are enough to ensure that people with soiled reputation, defaulters on loans and taxes are kept away from entering the parliament. Those who are pressing for the proposed changes without justifying the rationale to do so need to read Chapter IV section 12 of the Representation of People Act 1976. The ECP is empowered to seek any information about the candidates from any government agency who is under legal obligation to assist the ECP in this regard. The declarations made by candidates on these eligibility conditions can be easily verified by the election commission from the concerned departments. The ECP recently convened a meeting in which NAB, FBR and NADRA authorities were invited and all of these agencies have already assured their full cooperation to provide all necessary information required to determine the eligibility of candidates. These departments have a computerised record and there should be no difficulty in verifying the antecedents of the candidates within the stipulated period of seven days. The technology available should make it possible. Therefore, the demand for extending the scrutiny period beyond seven days in untenable. Army has also assured full support to the ECP in ensuring free, fair and transparent elections.

The other notion that the ECP can implement rules framed by it without the approval of the president as sending the rules to the president is only a formality, is also the biggest mis-statement of all. Section 107 of the Representation of People Act empowers the commission to makes rules for carrying out the purposes of the Act in these words: ‘The Commission may with the approval of the President, make rule for carrying out the purposes of this Act.” It is quite evident that approval of the president is not only a formality but a legal obligation and the commission cannot make new rules and implement them without the approval of the president. Therefore, the statement by the members of the ECP that it can go ahead in accordance with the proposed rules without the approval of the president is legally wrong. These members also seem to have gone beyond their mandate of holding elections by making incriminating statements against the would-be parliamentarians by branding them as thieves. And for media to support and encourage the propensity of one state institution dictating terms to the other institution in violation of its constitutional powers and individuals acting beyond the call of their duty is also very regrettable.

The ECP is a constitutional body bound to work within the framework of the constitution and the existing laws. It undoubtedly can make new rules but that requires consensus of the executive and approval of the president. Government has accepted some of the proposals of the ECP and expressed reservations on others, which is its prerogative. The ECP is not a law making body, and therefore, cannot dictate terms in this regard. In view of the legalities involved, the reports about the ECP going ahead with the printing of the new nomination papers in the light of its proposed changes without the approval of the president is regrettable.

The impression that government and opposition parties are trying to sabotage the efforts of the ECP to hold free, fair and transparent election and protecting corrupt element, is also not sustainable in view of the powers of the ECP under the Representation of People Act 1976 and articles 62 and 63 of the constitution as enunciated in the foregoing paragraphs. It is almost impossible for any person with a reputation of being corrupt, a loan defaulter, a tax evader or having a criminal record to sneak through the sieve that the ECP holds, provided the job is done with full commitment and the judicious exercise of powers that it already has and whatever changes in the rules are agreed by government. Even if it is conceded that government and opposition parties are working to protect their future candidates, it must be remembered that it is the people of Pakistan who are the ultimate arbiters and judge of the character and performance of the candidates and not the government or the opposition parties. With a vigilant and pro-active media in the country influencing the minds of people and helping them to make informed decisions, the possibility of wrong persons returning to parliament has diminished to a great extent. It is quite evident that there is no substance in the notions being propagated about the fairness of elections and the ability of the ECP to do so.