One person, one vote
With the current state of the delimitation of our constituencies this concept remains an elusive dream
The writer is a lawyer based in Lahore and also teaches at the Lahore University of Management Sciences. He holds an LLM from New York University where he was a Hauser Global Scholar. He tweets @HNiaziii
Our democratic project is approaching a momentous occasion. Elections are nearly here and while the trend of prime ministers not completing their tenure has cursed us yet again, an elected government will fulfill its term and strive for a smooth transition of power. For a country with a history like ours, this is a significant achievement that cannot be understated. However, we must acknowledge that the coming elections will not be congruent with democratic principles of fairness and equality. The prime culprit for such a claim being a lack of proper delimitation of constituencies.
Our mandates that each person’s vote be given equal value in accordance with the rule of ‘one person, one vote.’ Not only is this a basic principle of a republican form of government, but it is also necessary to fulfill the constitutional principles of equality. Proper delimitation is important because if there are significant variations in voter districts, in terms of population, then some votes will be given more weight than others. For example, if one district in Punjab with a population of 100,000 is given one national seat, while another, with a population of 10,000 is also given the same, then, the vote of people in the latter district has more weight than the former. This leads to the dilution of votes in the other district.
It was because of such inequality that the Supreme Court of the United States — in Reynold vs Sims — ruled Congress must make an honest and good faith effort to construct districts as nearly as possible to equal populations. Decades later, we still haven’t gotten the memo.
The Election Act of 2017 sought to address the issue of large disparities in voter populations in each constituency by allowing for a maximum deviation of 10% between one voter district and another. While the 10% figure is in accordance with international standards, the proposed delimitation on the basis of the provisional census results published by the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) paints a picture of unfairness coursing through the boundaries drawn.
Figures collected by Democracy Reporting International display an alarming state of voter disparity in the country with 34% of constituencies in Pakistan deviating from the 10% standard (with some deviating up to 65% from the legal threshold). Islamabad currently has three constituencies out of which two deviate from the 10% requirement. With such figures, it is hard to be optimistic about the fairness of the coming elections. The mere fact that the ECP has received approximately 1,285 objection petitions to the current delimitation boundaries should be enough to make it consider that there is something wrong with the current process being adopted to draw these boundaries.
The ramifications of these disparities need to be understood to gauge just how important it is to take delimitation seriously. Apart from problems like voter inequality and vote dilution, a lack of proper delimitation can affect Pakistan’s already abysmal voter turnout. This is due to, amongst other things, a latent idea in the minds of the people that their votes don’t really matter. Being confronted with the vast disparities in voter districts could allow this latent fear to bloom resulting in an even worse turnout tainting the entire election. Plus, unequal voter distribution allows for the scourge of democracy: the gerrymander, to rear its head. Our democracy is a fragile thing that needs time to grow, perhaps it is best then that we try to avoid corrupting its roots?
The provisional delimitation seems to provide evidence that the ECP gives too much priority to district and administrative boundaries at the expense of voter equality. This state of mind needs to change if we want proper delimitation to occur in the country. It is also important that the law impose a standard on the ECP that asks it to justify deviations from the 10% standard on the basis of a legitimate state interest, with such decisions being amenable to judicial review by the High Courts. We should appreciate that the coming elections will not be perfect, but it is important that they happen. The alternative bears too high a cost. We must, therefore, endeavour for smooth elections but immediately engage the next government to take the issue of delimitation seriously. Too often we forget the fact that a democratic system is not just about ticking boxes on a ballot, it is also about giving every individual an equal say in electing their leaders. With the current state of the delimitation of our constituencies this concept remains an elusive dream.
Published in The Express Tribune, April 10th, 2018.
Our mandates that each person’s vote be given equal value in accordance with the rule of ‘one person, one vote.’ Not only is this a basic principle of a republican form of government, but it is also necessary to fulfill the constitutional principles of equality. Proper delimitation is important because if there are significant variations in voter districts, in terms of population, then some votes will be given more weight than others. For example, if one district in Punjab with a population of 100,000 is given one national seat, while another, with a population of 10,000 is also given the same, then, the vote of people in the latter district has more weight than the former. This leads to the dilution of votes in the other district.
It was because of such inequality that the Supreme Court of the United States — in Reynold vs Sims — ruled Congress must make an honest and good faith effort to construct districts as nearly as possible to equal populations. Decades later, we still haven’t gotten the memo.
The Election Act of 2017 sought to address the issue of large disparities in voter populations in each constituency by allowing for a maximum deviation of 10% between one voter district and another. While the 10% figure is in accordance with international standards, the proposed delimitation on the basis of the provisional census results published by the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) paints a picture of unfairness coursing through the boundaries drawn.
Figures collected by Democracy Reporting International display an alarming state of voter disparity in the country with 34% of constituencies in Pakistan deviating from the 10% standard (with some deviating up to 65% from the legal threshold). Islamabad currently has three constituencies out of which two deviate from the 10% requirement. With such figures, it is hard to be optimistic about the fairness of the coming elections. The mere fact that the ECP has received approximately 1,285 objection petitions to the current delimitation boundaries should be enough to make it consider that there is something wrong with the current process being adopted to draw these boundaries.
The ramifications of these disparities need to be understood to gauge just how important it is to take delimitation seriously. Apart from problems like voter inequality and vote dilution, a lack of proper delimitation can affect Pakistan’s already abysmal voter turnout. This is due to, amongst other things, a latent idea in the minds of the people that their votes don’t really matter. Being confronted with the vast disparities in voter districts could allow this latent fear to bloom resulting in an even worse turnout tainting the entire election. Plus, unequal voter distribution allows for the scourge of democracy: the gerrymander, to rear its head. Our democracy is a fragile thing that needs time to grow, perhaps it is best then that we try to avoid corrupting its roots?
The provisional delimitation seems to provide evidence that the ECP gives too much priority to district and administrative boundaries at the expense of voter equality. This state of mind needs to change if we want proper delimitation to occur in the country. It is also important that the law impose a standard on the ECP that asks it to justify deviations from the 10% standard on the basis of a legitimate state interest, with such decisions being amenable to judicial review by the High Courts. We should appreciate that the coming elections will not be perfect, but it is important that they happen. The alternative bears too high a cost. We must, therefore, endeavour for smooth elections but immediately engage the next government to take the issue of delimitation seriously. Too often we forget the fact that a democratic system is not just about ticking boxes on a ballot, it is also about giving every individual an equal say in electing their leaders. With the current state of the delimitation of our constituencies this concept remains an elusive dream.
Published in The Express Tribune, April 10th, 2018.