The writer is Executive Editor of The Express Tribune
The second government of former prime minister the late Benazir Bhutto was dismissed on November 5, 1996. She went to the Supreme Court against the dismissal order on November 13, 1996. Her petition was admitted by the Supreme Court on November 24, 1996 after having sent it back twice. On both occasions, the reasons given for returning the petition were chiseled too fine to justify the Supreme Court’s decision but not fine enough to dispel the impression that it was intentionally dragging its feet. And the big gaps that occurred between the time the petition was admitted and the intermittent hearings ending on January 29, 1997 reinforced the impression. And when the final verdict came upholding the presidential order only seven days before the general elections (February 3, 1997), very few could resist the temptation of terming it a form of pre-poll rigging with both the then president and the then chief justice colluding.
The purpose of all this, it seemed, was to deny Benazir the time and space to conduct her election campaign effectively and also to create uncertainty in the minds of her voters, who were already being overwhelmed by the corruption charges being dissected in the Supreme Court against their party and its leadership, and bombarded at the same time, by the media trial started soon after the dismissal as if on cue, of the PPP, Benazir Bhutto and her spouse, Asif Ali Zardari. Some even felt that it was being done to force Benazir to boycott the election.
My purpose in recalling in such detail, this episode of our sad history — especially the pre-poll rigging part — is not to whitewash the dismissed government and is in no way an attempt to accord credence to similar charges levelled recently in his letter to the president by the NAB chief, Admiral (retd) Fasih Bokhari, against the current Supreme Court. What I am trying to establish is that pre-poll rigging comes in many forms and shapes.
Financial misdemeanours, nepotism and influence-peddling should never be condoned, especially if indulged in by those who aspire to represent the people of Pakistan in the elected assemblies. Such people should be barred from contesting elections. But I am not very sure if those who fulfil to the dot, the criteria laid down under the constitutional clauses 62 and 63, would like to soil their hands in not-so-savoury a profession like politics. And what is the guarantee that such persons would succeed even if they were to choose to enter the rough and tumble of politics? I am sure Allama Iqbal would never have talked about ‘changaziat’ if he had known how we would mix ‘siyasat’ and ‘deen’ under the 62, 63 brew.
The way these clauses are now being bandied around day in and day out as the religiously sanctioned norm to judge the suitability of a politician, there appears to be just one purpose behind it and that is to put a hatchet in the hands of those who would be sitting in judgment (they, too, would perhaps, fail the test) to do some pre-and post-poll rigging to ensure ‘desirable’ results.
Meanwhile, many seem to be still banking on the possibility (a wishful one, I am sure) of Justice (retd) Fakhruddin G Ebrahim, the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC), resigning after an interim government is installed. As the Constitution does not allow the interim government to appoint a CEC to replace the outgoing one, these day-dreamers are hoping that if such an eventuality presents itself, the Supreme Court would directly take over the CEC. And they are further hoping against hope that once the Supreme Court gets into a position of calling the shots, it would take upon itself, as did the military dictators in the past, to cleanse the stable for which the Court would hopefully rule that it would stay in the saddle until it has succeeded in turning Pakistan into a land of the pristine Pure where rivers of milk and honey would flow from every nook and cranny. What a Sheikh Chilli-type of dream! Get real man, the Supreme Court has already closed this door even against itself.
Published in The Express Tribune, February 6th, 2013.
COMMENTS (12)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
What's interesting is how the writer cherry picks the dubious letter by Fasih Bukhari and goes all the way back to 1996 to find an example of alleged pre-poll rigging against the PPP but completely ignores the various forms of blatent pre-poll rigging led by the PPP itself. Giving jobs to undeserving jialas, destroying national institutions in the process, diverting funds to selected constituencies, giving MNAs and MPAs special funds for "developing" their constituencies when their real job is legislation, using public funds for ads in the media to highlight the govts "achievements," controling the state controled media for pro-govt propaganda, and perhaps above all, the various instruments used by the feudal class to control constituency politics.
To this class of analysts, it's only pre-poll rigging when someone tries to confront their darling, the corrupt PPP.
All elections everywhere in the world are absolutely meaningless for the electors just because the elections fail to deliver peoples' true representation. Will remain so for as long as the people themselves will not come out to work to alter the situation. For all the problems people face anywhere in the world, people themselves are responsible for it. If people want to alter the situation to ensure their representation to be effective they have to come out to join hands with each other to organise their own party in their collective control. For as long as the intellectuals among the people will not start to work to herd and organise masses towards peoples' movement to organise their own party nothing will change. Never.
Ziauddin shows us the mirror every week. No wonder, many among us hate looking in the mirror for obvious reasons.
@John the Baptist:
"We don’t want rivers of honey and milk, only promoters of the decaying order say that as a ruse! We only want decent people who have no civil or criminal convictions, who have not embezzled public funds, lied on their registration forms to contest elections about their education or dual nationality, and who have paid their due share of taxes. Whether they are alcoholics, drug junkies, or fornicators (which most are), is no business of the state. Is that too difficult to understand?"
"We need to establish a distinction between the public and the private. Public figures should be judged on public record and not what they do in their bedrooms. Modify 62 and 63 to reflect this so that there is no excuse such as “Oh who is going to judge, blah blah blah” to hide behind. The amendments will still serve the same purpose in their modified, implementable form and get rid of the filth in our public institutions."
"Thank you Mr. Executive Editor. Now do the nation another favour: please do not vote for any family limited company."
Thank you too dear '@John the Baptist' for saving my time and energy and presenting my thoughts with succinct eloquence. Nothing irritates me more than a person of responsibility trying to mislead masses by telling only half truth.
One word: priorities. In a nation where the concept of 'one law for all' is only starting to take route, why are we writing articles on the intricacies of judicial reach? One step at a time man!
Which political party having lost the elections, would accept the results and call the process to be fair? This a typical liberal platitude, which has been said so many times that i wonder if anyone really makes anything out of it. What new has been said in this article? at least i can not figure out any pearls of wisdom. Every intellectual in our society belongs to a particular school of thought and speaks/ writes with in his perceived parameters. Mr Zia u Din represents the secular segment of our intelligentsia. I bet that u just tell us, the common people, the topic and mute the channel. we would precisely tell you what he had narrated. Fortunately, people aspiring to give a secular outlook to Pakistan, are very few in number, and are being over-projected
@John the Baptist:
Thank you Mr. Executive Editor. Now do the nation another favour: please do not vote for any family limited company.
The weekly liberal non sense.
We don't want rivers of honey and milk, only promoters of the decaying order say that as a ruse! We only want decent people who have no civil or criminal convictions, who have not embezzled public funds, lied on their registration forms to contest elections about their education or dual nationality, and who have paid their due share of taxes. Whether they are alcoholics, drug junkies, or fornicators (which most are), is no business of the state. Is that too difficult to understand?
We need to establish a distinction between the public and the private. Public figures should be judged on public record and not what they do in their bedrooms. Modify 62 and 63 to reflect this so that there is no excuse such as "Oh who is going to judge, blah blah blah" to hide behind. The amendments will still serve the same purpose in their modified, implementable form and get rid of the filth in our public institutions.
Now do your nation a favour and print this if you really are "fair and balanced" and I don't mean like the NYT who owns your loyalties!!!!
Hey man, u forgot to drag military in your article. u say a lot in between the line though, but may be today you didn't remember to fulfill your religious obligation
Dear Sir, A very deep, finely spun and touchy analysis of how different state tools may be used in ensuring desired results and manipulating elections. Your article might have opened up eyes of both many political gurus and those eyeing to rig the elections and steal them without any public mandate.