Symbols of ignorance

Government data suggests that in some parts of country, literacy rate is below 50%

I still remember the 1988 general elections. I was not quite 11 and was excited by this new experience in my life called general elections and political parties. I remember being fascinated by the phenomenon of party symbols, that looked like a giant version of a nursery alphabet book. There were symbols alongside pictures and three letter abbreviations everywhere, even in my hometown, the sleepy capital. There were catchy jingles to go with the symbols, some of which I can still hum. While I could figure out (as best a 10 year old can) the process of elections, what I could not fully understand was why do we have to have symbols, and what those symbols meant? Did a bicycle represent some ideas of IJI? Was arrow associated with some historical event in the life of PPP? What about other symbols like turban, kite, lantern and the wheel? Intrigued, I asked my mother, who patiently explained that the symbols are there for those who are unable to read the names — and unfortunately there were many such voters in the country. It made sense back then.

Thirty five years and three months later, it no longer makes sense. The fact that we have to have election symbols because a significant part of the population remains illiterate is absolutely terrifying. It seems that not much has changed in three and a half decades. Imagine having to tell someone that they should vote for a lion and not a house cat, that they should vote for a watch and not a wall clock and that table is good but a chair is bad. It is as absurd as it is tragic. The recent debates that have gone all the way to the highest court about election symbols, and who has the right to which symbol, has made me incredibly sad about literacy in the country and where we are headed. Government data suggests that in some parts of the country, the literacy rate is below 50%, and in some rural parts of Balochistan and Sindh, less than 1 in 3 women can read or write.

Before someone says that I am proposing that only literate persons should be allowed to vote, let me make it clear that this is not my point at all. I believe that every citizen, who is above the age of what the constitution sets as the minimum voting age, should be able to vote, and vote freely without any pressure. I would love to see a great turnout in all elections. I am simply arguing that while so many have opinions about election symbols, why is the discussion about the need for symbols completely missing? Why are we ok with the depressing state of illiteracy in the country that makes symbols a necessity?

Good decisions require information, evidence and data. As we lament the fact that few good candidates make it to our parliament, we should think about what information is available for people to make sound decisions. In a system where robust debates between candidates are non-existent and manifestos are often a bombastic list of goals without any substance or a working plan, how should one find out where each candidate stands? One place would be to look at the previous record of accomplishment, read what they have said, or have written. All of this requires literacy. Elections are a serious business and should be viewed as such. It should not be about tribal affiliations, ethnic preferences or sectarian allegiances. How can we expect people to think deeply about the choices that they are making if they cannot read the newspaper, and reflect on what one of their candidates said, or did in the past?

Saying that similar things happen in other countries is not a serious argument. What is serious, however, is our inability to recognise that election symbols do not represent a particular party, instead they represent the failure of the state in doing its most basic task of educating its people.

Published in The Express Tribune, January 16^th, 2024.

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