AT PENPOINT
The Pakistan Tehrik Insaf has had its symbol taken away from it. Of course, the reason, that it did not follow its own constitution, may have been true, but it did not exactly give the impression of the PTI getting a level playing field for the February 8 elections. This is because the PTI had its intra-party elections scanned with greater attention than other parties did. It has been restored by the Peshawar High Court while it hears an appeal, but that is a rather shaky restoration.
Of course, as the saying goes, two wrongs do not make a right. If one party has not had a proper examination of its claims, that does not preclude one of another’s. The PTI first came under the radar because it failed to conduct the required intra-party elections on time. It finally did so, but instead of a mere formality, dissident member Akbar S. Babar appealed against the elections, and the Election Commission of Pakistan decided that they did not fulfil the requirements for registration.
Perhaps nothing else so symbolises the PTI not enjoying a level playing field as this. It is not really a matter of whether the law has been applied or not, as it appears to have been done correctly. What is of perhaps more consequence is that the law has perhaps been not applied as rigorously to other parties. It may be a factor in the PTI’s case that an appeal was made, and the ECP can say it did not investigate the other parties because no one preferred an appeal,
The symbol is given because, at the time it was introduced, the electorate was overwhelmingly illiterate, something which is still true for a majority. The idea was that though the illiterate could not read the name of the candidate or party, they could recognise the symbol and stamp it.
If a party is allotted a symbol, then only one of its candidates gets the symbol, the person named in a letter to the Returning Officer. That letter has to be signed by one of the party officebearer recognised as such by the ECP. In fact, it is that letter which is the ‘party ticket,’
At present, because the PTI has no officebearers whose election is recognised by the ECP, its symbol cannot be allocated. However, as the RO is bound to allocate independent candidates the symbol (from an approved list) they ask for, it is open to the PTI to have its members contest as independents, but to ask for the same symbol in each constituency.
The MQM contested its first election that way, back in 1988, with all its candidates asking for, and getting, the ‘kite’ symbol. They then proceeded to form a group in Parliament, the so-called Haq Parast Group, which was necessary so that they could all be seated together, and not be mixed in with the other independents.
Like many other legal provisions, the PPO has been used by the establishment to prick political parties. However, for the first time, it has been used to wound one. Previously, the PPP and the PML(N) remained one step ahead. This time, however, the PTI may have lost its all-important symbol.
Independents have to make a choice of parties quickly, because the women’s and minorities’ reserved seats are allocated to the parties in proportion to the number of general seats they have won. Parties make independents join them so that they can claim more seats. Women’s and minorities’ seats are not open to independents, so any PTI members elected would not be able to combine and have their women elected. Another problem for the PTI is the potential for desertion. A party candidate enters the House already committed to the parliamentary party of that party. He is committed to vote according to the decisions of its leader on votes of confidence, votes of no-confidence, and budgets. Indeed, according to the Supreme Court’s judgement on Article 63A, dealing with floorcrossing, even if he votes against the party whip, his vote is to be counted as being cast as directed.
However, an independent is not so bound. When it is needed by the establishment, even party affiliations do not count. The episode of the formation of the PPP Patriots after the 2002 election, so that the government-backed PML(Q) could get a majority, should be remembered in this context. However, while the concept of a faction being formed exists in India, it does not in Pakistan. That means any PTI-affiliated independents elected could be inveigled into joining some other party. As the PTI independents may contain a proportion of ‘electables’, who are considered obedient to the establishment, and who joined the PTI up to 2018 because they were advised to by the quarters now inimical to it, such independents would be as resistant to changing their colours as the Patriots were.
The PTI already does not have much of a chance. Its candidates, whether for MNA or MPA, have not only got diminishing chances of winning, in an election where filing their papers has been an uphill struggle, but their party is not going to be even part of the government, let alone the ruling party. That means that affiliation to the PTI will mean that they will have no access to ministries, unless they desert. They will face life as an opposition member, which means that officials who should be submissive will arrogantly insist upon following the rules. Police and revenue officials will display a contumely that had been absent as long as there was a PTI government, while the local health and education department officials will no longer carry out the transfers they want.
An MNA or MPA whose party is in the opposition finds that he or she has considerable influence, but that will be nothing compared to what their defeated rivals enjoy. Because of that, because followers attach themselves to the leader who can get them released from prison when they are arrested, get the local patwari to issue a fard without too excessive a fee or get a file moved onwards from the clerk who has been sitting on it, the member might find that being in opposition means a dwindling of support come election time.
The PTI is perhaps in thicker soup than it realizes, because it has now become subject to the sort of schoolboyish interference that reflects both malignity and a low mentality. The PPP experienced this when it obtained the arrow symbol in 1988. Opponents put up independents who got the ‘pencil’ symbol. They clearly did not hope to win, but only to confuse the voters who needed a symbol to know who to vote for.
Such shenanigans have never really worked, which indicates that the electoral symbol is not really that much needed by voters, who are actually very sharp politically, even if illiterate. However, the symbol is needed to make operational the Political Parties Order, under which the ECP passed its orders against the PTI elections. The Order was made in 2002 by the Musharraf regime to control access to the 2002 election. It replaced the 1962 Political Parties Order, which had been promulgated by the Ayub regime, because it was then engaged in preparing the ground for the takeover by Ayub Khan of the Muslim League. It might be remembered that the PML that year split into the pro-Ayub Convention League and the anti-Ayub Council League.
It might be remembered that legislative control over what constitutes a political party, and executive control over such matters as internal party democracy, are unusual for voluntary associations. The PPO was essentially a means of control. It might be remembered that after it was promulgated, the PPP-Parliamentarians obtained registration with Makhdum Amin Fahim as Chairman, and contested that election. Similarly, the PML(N) had Makhum Javed Hashmi replace Mian Nawaz Sharif as President. Mian Nawaz Sharif being replaced by brother Shehbaz was also a result.
Like many other legal provisions, the PPO has been used by the establishment to prick political parties. However, for the first time, it has been used to wound one. Previously, the PPP and the PML(N) remained one step ahead. This time, however, the PTI may have lost its all-important symbol.
