Shades of dhandli
Pakistanis must stop believing that there exists an anthropological, sociological reason to bypass the law in Pakistan
We all want to know whether the dhandli allegations are true. But to focus exclusively on the malpractices which occurred during vote counting in the 2013 elections would be wrong. Unfair practices, some of which are legal, occur at other stages of the process and also need to be addressed. Actually, there’s a need for constant vigilance as politicians find new and ever more ingenious ways to achieve their ends.
In Malaysia, under a system known as Operation 1C, immigration is controlled so as to create demographics favourable for the incumbent party. And when it’s not possible to restrict the number of eligible voters, or to buy votes, preventing access to polling stations by intimidation and violence is always an alternative. In Bihar and Uttar Pradesh, party supporters ‘capture’ polling booths and cast every eligible vote for their party. Nor does cheating stop once the ballots are cast; the vote count can be inflated during counting, deflated or deliberately destroyed like in NA-250 in Karachi.
Just as democracies have worked out a myriad ways to make cheating difficult, politicians have ‘innovated’ any number of legal means to ensure they get a leg up on their opponents. The crudest way is to have party loyalists appointed as election officials. Another ploy is for incumbent regimes to encourage fringe parties ostensibly to promote a more responsive and vibrant political process but actually to divide the opposition vote. Tanzania’s parliament and presidency, which is perennially controlled by the Chama Cha Mapinduzi (CCM) party, goes even further and provides new parties with campaign financing. Actually in Tanzania, where elections are invariably free and fair, the incumbent party can sustain itself in office with as little as five per cent of the vote, which must be encouraging news for the PPP.
Another feature is bloc voting, that is, the ability of the local notables/the village patron (wadera) to deliver his community’s vote and obtain a reward for himself and his followers, or even get elected. The most egregious case of bald opportunism was spotted in Bihar, discovered by a researcher who was working on his PhD (1968-70). Apparently, the Raja of Ramgarh, who owned extensive mining interests, switched parties every few months. Having discovered that he could manipulate his bloc of backers to make and break governments, the Raja proceeded to do so with gusto. In the process, he enriched himself and his followers and was also able to have criminal charges dropped against him.
Then, of course, there is vote buying, which is very straightforward, as The New York Times reported on September 17, 2010, in an article titled “Afghan votes come cheap and often in bulk”. The article, however, noted that given the widespread fraud that occurred during voting, vote buying was really unnecessary.
But because there are so many individual voters, bribing voters works better at the bloc level. By rewarding support groups over others, individual voters are motivated to follow the choice of their group leader. Mayor Richard Daley’s corrupt party machine in Chicago worked that way. He handed out favours to leaders of the black and Hispanic communities who were willing to cooperate with him at the expense of other ethnic groups such as Germans.
Sticks as well as carrots can be used to persuade the electorate. The favourite ploy of the People’s Action Party (PAP), which has been in power in Singapore since independence, is to allocate funds for public housing only to those neighbourhoods which voted for the PAP. Robert Mugabe went one step further; he used bulldozers to demolish houses and markets in those areas which did not vote for him in the 2005 election.
There are a whole bag of dirty tricks to ward off defeat at the polls. One of the most popular, when an incumbent of the ruling party is in danger of losing an election, is to redraw the election boundaries to exclude opposition voters. It’s called gerrymandering and is especially popular in Karachi. Of course, it’s not confined to Karachi or to one country. The practice of gerrymandering, says an American researcher, ‘has made the odds of being voted out of a US Congressional seat no different from the odds of defeat faced by members of the erstwhile Supreme Soviet under the USSR’s one party rule’.
With regard to elections in Pakistan, on June 9, 2013, I wrote in The News:
‘The Kaptaan’s… error was to accept the rigged results (of the 2013 elections) docilely….There is no greater theft than stealing the vote, and to accept that with resignation is to accept a polluted democracy. It reveals a lack of will and a failure to be prepared to do all and more to become a leader. Worse it suggests that like your opponents you too are not in it to win or lose elections but to win the count.’
I went on to conclude:
“(True) this country cannot afford political upheaval at a time when it is threatened with enemies within and without. But in the end a leader must stand for something. Why sit in a parliament from which your own party men have been wrongly excluded? What kind of message does that send to the troops? Do you expect them to turn out and vote the next time knowing nothing much will happen if they are again cheated?”
The Kaptaan has belatedly made amends. He has stood up. And regardless of whether he sinks, or is sunk, no one will dare rig another election. Of course, many will say nothing will change as politicians will never forgo an attempt to cheat. Well, perhaps, but at least after the Islamabad showdown rigging won’t be the norm.
Meanwhile, as the Islamabad stand-off continues Pakistan appears a divided country. There is visceral loathing between the two sides. This mutual hatred and disdain may not lead to actual fighting but there is no doubt that each side looks on the other with absolute contempt. Opponents see the Nawaz regime as a sort of infection; a repository of wickedness and illegality. And Nawaz reciprocates these feelings. The division is a radical division. To some extent it’s a division about values and principles which, for the moment at least, removes any possibility of communication and of compromise. Soon we will have to take a stance. No doubt, for some, the stakes may be high and the decision difficult; however, for me it’s a no-brainer. I stand with the Kaptaan in his herculean endeavour to cleanse the election process. Pakistanis must stop believing that there exists an anthropological and sociological reason to bypass the law in Pakistan.
Published in The Express Tribune, August 29th, 2014.
In Malaysia, under a system known as Operation 1C, immigration is controlled so as to create demographics favourable for the incumbent party. And when it’s not possible to restrict the number of eligible voters, or to buy votes, preventing access to polling stations by intimidation and violence is always an alternative. In Bihar and Uttar Pradesh, party supporters ‘capture’ polling booths and cast every eligible vote for their party. Nor does cheating stop once the ballots are cast; the vote count can be inflated during counting, deflated or deliberately destroyed like in NA-250 in Karachi.
Just as democracies have worked out a myriad ways to make cheating difficult, politicians have ‘innovated’ any number of legal means to ensure they get a leg up on their opponents. The crudest way is to have party loyalists appointed as election officials. Another ploy is for incumbent regimes to encourage fringe parties ostensibly to promote a more responsive and vibrant political process but actually to divide the opposition vote. Tanzania’s parliament and presidency, which is perennially controlled by the Chama Cha Mapinduzi (CCM) party, goes even further and provides new parties with campaign financing. Actually in Tanzania, where elections are invariably free and fair, the incumbent party can sustain itself in office with as little as five per cent of the vote, which must be encouraging news for the PPP.
Another feature is bloc voting, that is, the ability of the local notables/the village patron (wadera) to deliver his community’s vote and obtain a reward for himself and his followers, or even get elected. The most egregious case of bald opportunism was spotted in Bihar, discovered by a researcher who was working on his PhD (1968-70). Apparently, the Raja of Ramgarh, who owned extensive mining interests, switched parties every few months. Having discovered that he could manipulate his bloc of backers to make and break governments, the Raja proceeded to do so with gusto. In the process, he enriched himself and his followers and was also able to have criminal charges dropped against him.
Then, of course, there is vote buying, which is very straightforward, as The New York Times reported on September 17, 2010, in an article titled “Afghan votes come cheap and often in bulk”. The article, however, noted that given the widespread fraud that occurred during voting, vote buying was really unnecessary.
But because there are so many individual voters, bribing voters works better at the bloc level. By rewarding support groups over others, individual voters are motivated to follow the choice of their group leader. Mayor Richard Daley’s corrupt party machine in Chicago worked that way. He handed out favours to leaders of the black and Hispanic communities who were willing to cooperate with him at the expense of other ethnic groups such as Germans.
Sticks as well as carrots can be used to persuade the electorate. The favourite ploy of the People’s Action Party (PAP), which has been in power in Singapore since independence, is to allocate funds for public housing only to those neighbourhoods which voted for the PAP. Robert Mugabe went one step further; he used bulldozers to demolish houses and markets in those areas which did not vote for him in the 2005 election.
There are a whole bag of dirty tricks to ward off defeat at the polls. One of the most popular, when an incumbent of the ruling party is in danger of losing an election, is to redraw the election boundaries to exclude opposition voters. It’s called gerrymandering and is especially popular in Karachi. Of course, it’s not confined to Karachi or to one country. The practice of gerrymandering, says an American researcher, ‘has made the odds of being voted out of a US Congressional seat no different from the odds of defeat faced by members of the erstwhile Supreme Soviet under the USSR’s one party rule’.
With regard to elections in Pakistan, on June 9, 2013, I wrote in The News:
‘The Kaptaan’s… error was to accept the rigged results (of the 2013 elections) docilely….There is no greater theft than stealing the vote, and to accept that with resignation is to accept a polluted democracy. It reveals a lack of will and a failure to be prepared to do all and more to become a leader. Worse it suggests that like your opponents you too are not in it to win or lose elections but to win the count.’
I went on to conclude:
“(True) this country cannot afford political upheaval at a time when it is threatened with enemies within and without. But in the end a leader must stand for something. Why sit in a parliament from which your own party men have been wrongly excluded? What kind of message does that send to the troops? Do you expect them to turn out and vote the next time knowing nothing much will happen if they are again cheated?”
The Kaptaan has belatedly made amends. He has stood up. And regardless of whether he sinks, or is sunk, no one will dare rig another election. Of course, many will say nothing will change as politicians will never forgo an attempt to cheat. Well, perhaps, but at least after the Islamabad showdown rigging won’t be the norm.
Meanwhile, as the Islamabad stand-off continues Pakistan appears a divided country. There is visceral loathing between the two sides. This mutual hatred and disdain may not lead to actual fighting but there is no doubt that each side looks on the other with absolute contempt. Opponents see the Nawaz regime as a sort of infection; a repository of wickedness and illegality. And Nawaz reciprocates these feelings. The division is a radical division. To some extent it’s a division about values and principles which, for the moment at least, removes any possibility of communication and of compromise. Soon we will have to take a stance. No doubt, for some, the stakes may be high and the decision difficult; however, for me it’s a no-brainer. I stand with the Kaptaan in his herculean endeavour to cleanse the election process. Pakistanis must stop believing that there exists an anthropological and sociological reason to bypass the law in Pakistan.
Published in The Express Tribune, August 29th, 2014.