Measuring the freeness of elections

Election observation can’t be examined in isolation. Understanding its context, history and purpose is essential. For instance, the spread of election observation is an outcome of “democratic conditionality” that was imposed by Western countries. India and Pakistan are the two best examples. As India has been less dependent on foreign aid, it doesn’t allow for election observation. The opposite is true for Pakistan. Nonetheless, the need of election observation cannot be ignored outright. Historically, the first such exercise was conducted in 1857 in Moldavia. By the 1960s about 105 elections were being monitored. Soon after the end of the Cold War, it became very common; and by 2010-20 almost 80% of elections were observed.

The UN also played an important role in this regard. In 1966, its General Body adopted the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which only became effective after almost a decade. Article 25 of the ICCPR sets the basic standards for free and fair elections: “Every citizen shall have the right and the opportunity... (a) to take part in the conduct of public affairs, directly or through freely chosen representatives; (b) to vote and to be elected at genuine periodic elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret ballot, guaranteeing the free expression of the will of the electors.”

Despite the fact that 168 countries ratified the ICCPR, almost every signatory state violated Article 25 either within their own country or somewhere else. For instance, liberal democracies of the West continued supporting dictatorships, monarchies and governments that were formed as the result of rigged elections. The practice continues even today.

Regardless, ICCPR has helped define the two fundamental principles of every electoral exercise — freeness and fairness. Robert Dahl, a leading political expert, defines a free and fair election as those that are “free of coercion and have fair processes leading up to the polling, a fair count of eligible voters and acceptance of election results by all parties”. While I broadly agree with him, I am reluctant to accept the last bit of his definition because in some countries such as the US, Pakistan and India, several elections were neither free nor fair and yet contesting parties had accepted the results. Politicians are politicians. And they can act like artists when their possibilities are limited. But election observers can’t afford that luxury. They can’t declare a bad election as credible just because politicians have accepted it.

In my view this is one of the best definitions by far: “A free election is [one] in which all citizens are able to vote for the candidate of their choice without any fear, favour, pressure or coercion; while a fair election is [one] in which all contesting parties have [a] level playing field and [are] treated equally.” In this article, I am limiting my discussion to the “freeness” of elections.

As we all know, under the majoritarian electoral system a candidate can win or lose just by one vote. But do we know the number of voters whose freedom is suppressed in each election to achieve that one magic vote, and who the culprits behind it are? Do we know what methods they use? Almost everyone is likely to say no. Even election observation groups (EOGS) and election authorities appear to have little clue. This is true for most South Asian countries for the simple reason that hardly anyone bothers to measure the suppression of voters’ free will comprehensively.

Almost all EOGSs primarily observe what takes place inside polling stations. The FAFEN observation of various elections establishes that some voters were pressured even within the polling stations. A logical question arises that if voters could be oppressed in a highly administered environment, then many more could be suppressed through bribes or coercion in neighbourhoods and workplaces.

A former Chief Election Commissioner of India, SY Quraishi, describes 40 means of [mis]use of money in Indian elections in his remarkable book titled An Undocumented Wonder: The Making of the Great Indian Election. One of the methods is doling out “money to rival candidates and political parties to not campaign seriously” and paying cash to not vote. To claim their reward, voters must show that their finger is unmarked by the indelible ink. It is an eye-opening account. I would highly recommend this book to those who have any interest in Pakistan’s elections because of its familiarity. Intriguingly, no former high official of the ECP has ever dared to write an honest account of our tainted elections.

PATTAN, a development organisation with whom I am associated, had discovered as part of its observations that the practice of vote-buying and the use of coercive methods was rampant during the 2001 and 2005 local government elections. Similar corrupt practices came to the surface during my election observation visits to some constituencies. A significant number of women in Lahore had reported that their male elders had confiscated their CNICs because they had refused to vote for the chosen candidate. Moreover, on the polling day, many women reported that their names had been transferred to other constituencies or to other cities without their consent. To confirm their claim, we checked the status of their registration by sending an SMS at ECP’s cell number 8300. They were right. This sounds crude but the “free will” of many voters is not upheld in almost every constituency in every election.

The analogy of a fever will help in understanding the difference between free and unfree elections. A person either has fever or not. The same is true for an election. It is either free or not. Nothing exists in between. Therefore, it may be concluded that any electoral exercise in which the free will of voters are curtailed can’t be considered as free or fair. In order to identify the level of suppression, it is imperative to investigate the ways and means that various candidates and parties will use in the coming elections. We must not forget that coercion doesn’t take place overnight. It is deeply rooted in our power and wealth structures. Multi-dimensional poverty and extreme inequality has made many voters vulnerable to pressures and financial benefits.

Published in The Express Tribune, November 9^th, 2021.

Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.