Let’s talk about the money

Pakistan should put more effort towards educating citizens about having electoral laws implemented.


Sehar Tariq July 02, 2012
Let’s talk about the money

The Representation of The Peoples Act, 1976 (and not a recent Supreme Court ruling) mandates that candidates must not spend more than Rs1.5 million on their electoral campaigns for the National Assembly. All National Assembly candidates are required to maintain a separate bank account for electoral finances and submit receipts to their returning officer for expenses incurred in the campaigning process to ensure that they do not exceed the amount specified. But this number is an inconsequential joke for Pakistani politicians and is unknown to most Pakistanis who, under the same act, have the power to scrutinise any candidate’s electoral expenses. In April 2012, the Supreme Court in its ruling on the Constitutional Petition No 87 of 2011, upheld these rules and directed the Election Commission to monitor candidates’ election expenses.

The rules of electoral finance lie at the very heart of the democratic process. These regulations are put in place to ensure that elections, by virtue of their cost, do not become the exclusive domain of the filthy rich. Our criminal neglect of electoral finance is one of the reasons for the kind of democracy we live in. Requiring the Election Commission to implement this Supreme Court verdict will require capacity that the Election Commission does not possess. But this is where friends of democracy should be directing their energies if we really want to change the quality and calibre of those in power.

The lacklustre leadership in control of the country consists of those people who have the money and clout to contest and win elections, which in Pakistan are neither won nor contested on the basis of competence or the policy views held by the candidates. Instead, contested on the basis of power and money, those that have neither, stand spectacularly slim chances of ever winning an election. So, we can automatically write-off most of the upstanding members of society. Therefore, until we change (or implement) the rules of financing the electoral game, we are likely to end up with the corrupt but powerful in the national driving seat.

What could be sadder than a country that has to resort to thinking of who is the least corrupt, least dishonest or least incompetent when trying to decide who should hold one of the highest offices in the land? Pakistan took a loud collective groan the day Raja Pervaiz Ashraf was elected prime minister. He is the man most Pakistanis associate with the energy crisis, unfulfilled promises and unlawful financial gain at the expense of millions of people who live their lives between loadshedding cycles. Even amongst the most ardent supporters of democracy, there is a deep sense of discomfort with the candidate that the democratic process has put on the prime ministerial throne.

As a result, some are yearning for the boots and others are calling for early elections. But we have tried the boots before and they don’t fit this country well. We could have new elections but they are likely to put more ‘Raja Rentals’ in parliament. The problem lies not with just this man who is now prime minister, but the large majority of those who (dis)grace the halls of parliament. Alternatives to Ashraf included a health minister accused of involvement in a narcotics scam, a former defence minister on whose watch we saw the largest number of plane crashes in the history of Pakistan but never once a public apology and a foreign minister who can afford to buy extremely expensive handbags but whose husband reportedly cannot afford to pay electricity bills.

Hardly an inspirational cabal of leaders. Unfortunately, these and more like them are the only options we have. So those of us who do not suffer from amnesia and believe that democracy is the only sustainable solution for Pakistan should spend less time complaining about ‘unrealistic’ electoral laws and put more effort towards educating citizens about having them implemented. Changing the rules of the money game in elections can be a powerful tool for changing the face of democratic politics in Pakistan.

Published in The Express Tribune, July 3rd, 2012.

COMMENTS (13)

Raja Islam | 12 years ago | Reply

Elections are a very costly affair. In case of Pakistani politics, candidates have to come up with their own funding. In some cases they have to pay party leadership to get party tickets to run. The campaign also costs millions especially in the rural areas. As there is low population density, distances are large and candidates have to travel around their constituencies. On election day, vehicles need to be provided to voters to get to the polling stations, polling agents need to be paid and food needs to be arranged for all throughout the day. All in all running for a national assembly seat may cost a 100 million rupees or so.

When a candidate wins, he wants to be with the ruling party and starts to lobby for a ministry. The whole idea is to recoup the elections expense and make some more money to pay for the next election. During the tenure of the assembly or more so in case you are appointed a minister, there is a huge expenditure on food and entertainment. There is always a line of people who want some sort of favor and some of these may have traveled long distances to get to the MNA, Senator, MPA or minister. They all expect to be fed and some may need to be provided with accommodation for the night. The single biggest expense is for food.

All in all the system needs to be changed, but it will not be an easy fix.

Mirza | 12 years ago | Reply

@Rafi Ka Deewana: I agree with you on each point. You know I am collecting all my fav songs and digitally cleaning the noise from each of them. Even though some of them are available in the voice of Sonu and Anuradha but I want the real thing not the copy. Cheers, "Chalkaye Jaam" Mirza

VIEW MORE COMMENTS
Replying to X

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.

For more information, please see our Comments FAQ