Flawed distribution of ECP display centres
Election Commission of Pakistan has set up 25,000 Display Centres for 21 days (Sept 20 – Oct 10) across the country
The writer is a social activist and the National Coordinator for Pattan Development Organisation. The views expressed are his own. He tweets @BariSarwra
Under the Electoral Rolls Act 1974, the Election Commission of Pakistan has set up 25,000 Display Centres for 21 days (Sept 20 – Oct 10) across the country. The objective is to improve quality of the rolls by providing citizens an opportunity to correct, transfer and delete wrong entries on the rolls by filling the relevant forms. This exercise if performed effectively will make the rolls for the forthcoming general elections comprehensive, transparent, error free and complete. In other words, the rolls have no ghost/double entries and no one is left out. The result must be — every detail of everyone is correct on the rolls.
Indeed checking details of roughly 95 million voters is a gigantic exercise. Therefore, planning, preparedness and execution then must have matched the scale of the task. That perhaps didn’t happen at the ECP.
The foremost component of this exercise should have been contiguity of Display Centres (DCs) to voters. This is being severely compromised. The ECP has literally barred a large majority of voters from reaching to DCs by setting up very few centres. Hence, it has seriously undermined its own effort. And this has also caused a huge financial damage to the exchequer.
In this article, I attempt to substantiate my opinion with the following analysis. Prior to the 2013 general elections, in 2012 the ECP had set up 55,000 DCs, which are being reduced now by 30,000, while during this period the number of registered voters has increased roughly from 86 million to 93 million. The second serious problem with the whole exercise is — skewed and discriminatory allocation of DCs to provinces and districts.
Let’s examine the provincial allocation first. Balochistan’s 3.7 million voters got only 1,338 DCs. This means DC-voters ratio is 1 to 2,758. Apparently it seems fine. But the real problem surfaces when voters’ density per square km is calculated. The calculation shows that in 1km² 9.9 voters exist. In other words, the catchment area of each DC is as large as 279km². Keeping in view the lack of roads and poor transport in most parts of the province, and then expecting a poor voter to take pain and spend his/her scare resources on travel in order to check his/her electoral details is a foolish thought. Many parts of Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa are hilly and large tracts of Sindh are desert like. Such areas also lack transport facilities, yet at the time of planning these ground realities were ignored.
On the other hand, Punjab has a higher population density and better transport and road facilities than other province, but here on average each centre covers just 29km². In Islamabad Capital Territory the ratio is just one to six km².
Though Punjab has much better allocation of DCs than the other provinces, when you conduct the comparative analysis across Punjab’s districts, the same discrimination surfaced that we have found in the provinces.
For instance, district Lahore has 248 display centres for 4.4 million registered voters, while in Faisalabad; 3.6 million registered voters just have 62 centres. In other words, on average in Lahore one centre is available to 17,782 voters, while one centre is available to as many as 58,431 (3.2 times higher) voters in Faisalabad. Moreover, per km² voters’ density in Lahore is 2,489, which is four times higher than Faisalabad’s. Also consider this — road length, transport availability and vehicle ownership rate in Lahore is much better than Faisalabad.
More surprises. Gujranwala and Narowal have far less population than Lahore and Faisalabad. But Gujranwala’s 2.27 million registered voters have 316 DCs (five times more than Faisalabad’s), which means 7,193 voters have one centre in Gujranwala. Narowal’s 792,379 voters have as many as 125 centres (two times more than Faisalabad) or one centre for 6,339 voters.
Okara and Gujrat have 675 and 629 centres, respectively — the largest number of DCs in Punjab, despite having half of the Faisalabad’s population and voters but having 11 times more centres. The same pattern is found in Sheikhupura and Sialkot. They have 371 and 436 centres, respectively.
The above analysis clearly shows that perhaps the ECP did not consider demographic and geographical data while allocating display centres to various districts. I will further use the voters’ density per km² tool in order to find out the scale of the problem.
A comparison of Gujranwala and Faisalabad further proves that the ECP didn’t use any standard formula. In both districts the voters’ density per km² is almost similar. Gujranwala and Faisalabad have 627 and 618 voters per km², respectively but Gujranwala has 254 more centres than Faisalabad’s.
Surprisingly, in some districts this unfair and discriminatory allocation is nakedly evident. Just consider this — in Dera Ghazi Khan, Jhang, Attock, Toba Tek Singh and Faisalabad each centre covers as much as 497, 489, 208, 203 and 95 km², respectively, which is shamelessly too large an area for one centre. However, the catchment area in Gujrat, Okara, Lahore and Gujranwala is just 5, 6, 7 and 11 km², respectively. This ratio should have been adopted in all districts. The formula that is being adopted in Balochistan, Dera Ghazi Khan, Jhang and Faisalabad, etc is terribly wrong and must be improved immediately, as this is barring women, disabled and poor voters far away from checking their entries on the rolls. Hence, the ECP undermines the goal 8 (to reduce the gap between men and women on the electoral rolls) and the guiding principle of inclusiveness of its Strategic Plan 2014 -18.
The above comparison uncovers contradictory and strange patterns in the ECP plan. It could be therefore concluded that the ECP did not plan well for the Display of the Electoral Rolls for Revision. The poor publicity and awareness campaign about display period, too, having its adverse impact. These indicators clearly establish a fact that the new ECP members could not help improve working of the ECP. Thus, its professionalism has become doubtful too — another guiding principle of the ECP’s Strategic Plan is being compromised.
Even a layman and a laywoman in our country know very well that the current democracy is for the elite, of the elite and by the elite. Then why would they go out to check their entries on the rolls unless they are transported to the DCs like they are taken to polling stations? Didn’t the ECP know this? Last but not the least. My trust in the ECP is diminished.
Published in The Express Tribune, September 26th, 2016.
Indeed checking details of roughly 95 million voters is a gigantic exercise. Therefore, planning, preparedness and execution then must have matched the scale of the task. That perhaps didn’t happen at the ECP.
The foremost component of this exercise should have been contiguity of Display Centres (DCs) to voters. This is being severely compromised. The ECP has literally barred a large majority of voters from reaching to DCs by setting up very few centres. Hence, it has seriously undermined its own effort. And this has also caused a huge financial damage to the exchequer.
In this article, I attempt to substantiate my opinion with the following analysis. Prior to the 2013 general elections, in 2012 the ECP had set up 55,000 DCs, which are being reduced now by 30,000, while during this period the number of registered voters has increased roughly from 86 million to 93 million. The second serious problem with the whole exercise is — skewed and discriminatory allocation of DCs to provinces and districts.
Let’s examine the provincial allocation first. Balochistan’s 3.7 million voters got only 1,338 DCs. This means DC-voters ratio is 1 to 2,758. Apparently it seems fine. But the real problem surfaces when voters’ density per square km is calculated. The calculation shows that in 1km² 9.9 voters exist. In other words, the catchment area of each DC is as large as 279km². Keeping in view the lack of roads and poor transport in most parts of the province, and then expecting a poor voter to take pain and spend his/her scare resources on travel in order to check his/her electoral details is a foolish thought. Many parts of Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa are hilly and large tracts of Sindh are desert like. Such areas also lack transport facilities, yet at the time of planning these ground realities were ignored.
On the other hand, Punjab has a higher population density and better transport and road facilities than other province, but here on average each centre covers just 29km². In Islamabad Capital Territory the ratio is just one to six km².
Though Punjab has much better allocation of DCs than the other provinces, when you conduct the comparative analysis across Punjab’s districts, the same discrimination surfaced that we have found in the provinces.
For instance, district Lahore has 248 display centres for 4.4 million registered voters, while in Faisalabad; 3.6 million registered voters just have 62 centres. In other words, on average in Lahore one centre is available to 17,782 voters, while one centre is available to as many as 58,431 (3.2 times higher) voters in Faisalabad. Moreover, per km² voters’ density in Lahore is 2,489, which is four times higher than Faisalabad’s. Also consider this — road length, transport availability and vehicle ownership rate in Lahore is much better than Faisalabad.
More surprises. Gujranwala and Narowal have far less population than Lahore and Faisalabad. But Gujranwala’s 2.27 million registered voters have 316 DCs (five times more than Faisalabad’s), which means 7,193 voters have one centre in Gujranwala. Narowal’s 792,379 voters have as many as 125 centres (two times more than Faisalabad) or one centre for 6,339 voters.
Okara and Gujrat have 675 and 629 centres, respectively — the largest number of DCs in Punjab, despite having half of the Faisalabad’s population and voters but having 11 times more centres. The same pattern is found in Sheikhupura and Sialkot. They have 371 and 436 centres, respectively.
The above analysis clearly shows that perhaps the ECP did not consider demographic and geographical data while allocating display centres to various districts. I will further use the voters’ density per km² tool in order to find out the scale of the problem.
A comparison of Gujranwala and Faisalabad further proves that the ECP didn’t use any standard formula. In both districts the voters’ density per km² is almost similar. Gujranwala and Faisalabad have 627 and 618 voters per km², respectively but Gujranwala has 254 more centres than Faisalabad’s.
Surprisingly, in some districts this unfair and discriminatory allocation is nakedly evident. Just consider this — in Dera Ghazi Khan, Jhang, Attock, Toba Tek Singh and Faisalabad each centre covers as much as 497, 489, 208, 203 and 95 km², respectively, which is shamelessly too large an area for one centre. However, the catchment area in Gujrat, Okara, Lahore and Gujranwala is just 5, 6, 7 and 11 km², respectively. This ratio should have been adopted in all districts. The formula that is being adopted in Balochistan, Dera Ghazi Khan, Jhang and Faisalabad, etc is terribly wrong and must be improved immediately, as this is barring women, disabled and poor voters far away from checking their entries on the rolls. Hence, the ECP undermines the goal 8 (to reduce the gap between men and women on the electoral rolls) and the guiding principle of inclusiveness of its Strategic Plan 2014 -18.
The above comparison uncovers contradictory and strange patterns in the ECP plan. It could be therefore concluded that the ECP did not plan well for the Display of the Electoral Rolls for Revision. The poor publicity and awareness campaign about display period, too, having its adverse impact. These indicators clearly establish a fact that the new ECP members could not help improve working of the ECP. Thus, its professionalism has become doubtful too — another guiding principle of the ECP’s Strategic Plan is being compromised.
Even a layman and a laywoman in our country know very well that the current democracy is for the elite, of the elite and by the elite. Then why would they go out to check their entries on the rolls unless they are transported to the DCs like they are taken to polling stations? Didn’t the ECP know this? Last but not the least. My trust in the ECP is diminished.
Published in The Express Tribune, September 26th, 2016.