Poor in wealth, rich in turnout

The high voter turnout compared to previous elections is being attributed to a number of factors. These include an independent Election Commission (EC), procedural improvements, cleaning up of the electoral list, addition of youthful voters especially in urban areas, awareness campaigns and exhortations by political leaders at their public meetings. Common sense would suggest a higher turnout in urban constituencies and relatively better off districts. Poor in wealth, poor in turnout is a common adage in mature democracies. But the turnout on May 11, 2013 observed a distribution contrary to the expectations. Karachi, according to the Social Policy and Development Centre (SPDC), is the least poor district of Pakistan. Yet, the voter turnout was above the national average of 60 per cent in only three constituencies of the National Assembly. The highest was 65.54 per cent in NA-242. Some voters may have been kept away by the terrorist threat. Ranked after Karachi, however, even in Rawalpindi only NA-53 witnessed a voter turnout above the mean of 60 per cent, in spite of the far lower threat level. Lahore, a district with the third lowest poverty ratio, was no different: only NA-128 experienced a voter turnout of 64 per cent.



It was in the poorest districts that some of the highest turnouts were in evidence. Bahawalnagar, with a poverty rank of 37, saw all of its constituencies cross the 60 per cent mark. In fact, one constituency of the district, NA-191, was ahead of all constituencies of the country with a turnout of 84.8 per cent. Chitral, with a poverty rank of 61, had a voter turnout of 63.7 per cent. In rural Sindh, the highest turnout of 68.4 per cent was in NA-228 of Umerkot, followed by 67.5 per cent in NA-233 of Dadu. NA-267, Kachhi-Jhal Magsi, attracted 61.3 per cent of the registered voters. Both constituencies of Layyah, which are ranked 60 on the poverty scale, attracted turnouts of 67.6 and 68.1 per cent. All five constituencies of Muzzafargarh, ranked 90 at the bottom vis-a-vis poverty, showed a voter turnout of above 61 per cent.

The daily struggle for making ends meet occupies the poor the most. This is what economists call an opportunity or alternative cost for political participation. Their experiences inform economists about the hollowness of the political sloganeering to reduce poverty and unemployment. How is it that the highest turnouts have occurred in the poorest constituencies? Poverty is strongly correlated with the poor state of education and health. Many of these constituencies lie far away from the “media land.” Awareness, therefore, cannot explain much in this regard. Mobilisation by political parties through mass work can bring the poor out. Other than some big jalsas by major parties, political work at the grassroots level has become a thing of the past. There was no Bhutto-style wave anyway, Imran Khan’s tsunami notwithstanding. Restrictions placed by the EC on serving food and transport should also have also reduced the turnout.

Many of these constituencies continue to suffer from the feudal stranglehold. In its worst form, the thana kachehry culture fertilises ghost turnouts. The EC has admitted that the turnout at some polling stations was more than 100 per cent. One will not be surprised if many such polling stations were located in the poverty-stricken, high-turnout constituencies. There is work cut out for the EC. After holding an election which, on the whole, was free of political and extra-political meddling, it has to find ways of delinking the electoral competition from the informal nexus between the political elite and the administration at the constituency level.

Published in The Express Tribune, May 17^th, 2013.