A constitutional amendment requires broad consensus on what is best for the country and democracy in the long run.
This isn’t what is happening around the proposed amendment to eliminate the secret ballot from the Senate election process. Instead, the government has displayed a strategy marred by shallow thinking rather than deep reflection.
To understand why, we first need to understand the problem that the amendment is trying to address.
Pakistan’s Senate is elected through an indirect process based on the single transferable voting system. Senators are elected on a proportional representation basis by members of the National and Provincial Assemblies. Each voter assigns a preference to each candidate that is to be elected through a secret ballot.
However, the indirect vote, along with the secret ballot, opened the door to horse-trading — the buying of votes — in Senate elections.
This is because indirect elections result in a smaller pool of voters that can be easily bought or influenced as opposed to the massive number of voters involved in direct elections to the National Assembly. Huge sums of money are thrown at this smaller group of voters by candidates to achieve victory. This was evident in 2018 when, upon the removal of the Zehri government in Balochistan, horse-trading ran riot.
Because votes are secret, there is no way for political parties to know who voted against party lines. This facilitation of horse-trading by the secret ballot is what motivates the PTI’s proposed amendment.
While it is true that the secret ballot does make horse-trading easier, it is also true that the secret ballot allows people to vote without fear of reprisal for positions they believe in. Secrecy of the ballot is a cornerstone of democratic elections. Yes, it may allow for voters in the National and Provincial Assemblies to take positions against party lines, but internal party dissent is not something a democracy should oppose. Slavish adherence to the party line is currently making the impeachment of Donald Trump in the United States Senate impossible despite his clear abuse of office. In short, votes should be cast on principle, not partisan loyalty.
Interestingly, the PTI seems to have forgotten that the secret ballot worked in their favour in 2019, in a different context.
A vote of no-confidence against the Senate chairman also takes place through a secret ballot. In 2019, when the opposition moved a motion of no-confidence against Sadiq Sanjrani, it had 64 senators in support. Well in excess of the 53 needed for the vote to succeed. However, when the results of the secret ballot were announced, the opposition found themselves three votes short.
One possible reason for this happening (as the PTI suggested) was that some members of the opposition were unconvinced by their party’s argument for removing the chairman. Another is (as the opposition claimed) that they were bought off.
It appears the secret ballot cuts both ways: while removing it may decrease horse-trading, it may increase the likelihood of senators failing to take independent, principled positions against their party. This would be a loss for democracy, especially given that the constitutional prohibition regarding floor crossing does not apply to Senate elections.
This downside is not being considered in the proposed amendment, and this appears to be the reason for the opposition withholding their support for it.
Whether or not this proposal succeeds, all major political parties agree that the Senate needs reform. The PTI has been saying this since 2018, and the PML-N and PPP said it in 2019.
The best method to eliminate horse-trading while maintaining the ability for senators to take principled positions against their party is to make the Senate directly elected.
Direct elections would remove the problem of horse-trading entirely. A pool of voters across the entire nation cannot be bought or influenced easily. Furthermore, direct elections would only strengthen the democratic credentials of the Senate. Indirect elections allow a mere proxy link between citizen and senator — but it is a weak link at best.
Direct elections would make senators accountable to the people rather than their political party. This allows senators to vote with their conscience when the situation demands it and let the people, rather than the party leader, decide if it was the right thing to do. It also provides a stronger justification for removing the secret ballot from other Senate procedures as well, such as the vote for the chairman. Because people have a right to know how their elected representatives are voting, open votes would be justified in this sense.
There are of course many other aspects to consider if concrete reform of the Senate elections is to be undertaken. The point is that there are many nuances and practicalities to consider when looking at electoral reform. Because reform is only considered on the eve of the elections, these issues are missed at the altar of expediency.
If the PTI is serious about making a better Senate then it should bring together a cross-section of experts and parliamentarians to provide recommendations on this issue. This is something that both the opposition and the government need to work together on if they want to end the cycle of horse-trading that continues to cheapen our democracy.
Published in The Express Tribune, February 2nd, 2021.
Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.
COMMENTS
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ