Although the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) and the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf have never seen eye to eye, with the former investigating the latter in the foreign funding case and more recently calling a reelection in Daska due to blatant rigging and irregularities, there was a line that was not crossed. Unfortunately, following the ECP’s objections over the controversial introduction of Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) in the next general elections, two PTI ministers made a series of unprecedented attacks on the ECP itself and the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC), that line has been emphatically crossed. While Federal Minister for Railways Azam Swati has stated that the ECP takes bribes and such institutions should be ‘set on fire’, Federal Minister for Information Fawad Chaudhry said that it had become the ‘headquarters for opposition parties’. The CEC and the institution he heads was expectedly not going to take this lying down and has since sent notices to Chaudhry and Swati demanding proof of their allegations, for which both members of the federal cabinet have asked for more time. In case the required evidence is not produced, one would have to term the claims made by the PTI government against the ECP as irresponsible hyperbole stemming from frustration after being unable to get a nod of approval from a constitutional body over a policy measure without satisfying it of its usefulness and necessity. The PTI must understand that election reforms cannot start and stop at simply throwing technology at a process, which is still widely accepted and practiced as the safest method of voting in most democracies around the world: the paper ballot.
At the end of the day, it is the ECP which is responsible for conducting free and fair elections and will be answerable to the courts and voters if a major change such as the introduction of EVMs backfires on Election Day and the entire exercise is severely compromised. It is the government’s job to fully convince the ECP on the effectiveness and utility of EVMs, proving demonstrably that they cannot be easily hacked. If it is unable to do so, making baseless exaggerated statements bordering on abuse is no way to conduct oneself in a democracy.
