ECP’s Controversial Actions and the Supreme Court’s Reprimand: A Critical Analysis of Pakistan’s Electoral Integrity

Mudassir Rizwan

The Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) has once again found itself at the center of controversy, facing a harsh reprimand from the Supreme Court. This time, the issue concerns the ECP’s decision to de-seat an independent lawmaker who was allegedly ‘claimed’ by the ruling Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) as one of their own. The Supreme Court, in its ruling, found that the ECP had overstepped its bounds and lacked the jurisdiction to conclusively determine the authenticity of an affidavit in which the lawmaker allegedly expressed allegiance to the PML-N. This judgment has reignited the ongoing debate about the ECP’s role in maintaining electoral integrity and its responsibility to the people of Pakistan.

In its judgment, the Supreme Court pointed out that the ECP’s decision to de-seat the lawmaker was not supported by adequate evidence and violated the constitutional framework governing electoral conduct. The issue at hand was whether the affidavit submitted by the lawmaker, indicating his joining of the PML-N, was genuine. The court ruled that the ECP does not possess the authority to make a final determination on this matter, as it falls outside the commission’s jurisdiction. By de-seating the lawmaker for failing to adhere to the PML-N’s directives on the 26th Amendment, the ECP not only misinterpreted its powers but also undermined the authority of other constitutional bodies, including the legislature.

Furthermore, the court emphasized the existence of substantial evidence that the lawmaker had declared his allegiance to the Sunni Ittehad Council. This declaration had been made both in writing to the ECP and publicly, which should have been given more weight than the vague claims made by the PML-N leadership. The PML-N failed to produce any concrete proof that the lawmaker had ever been a member of their parliamentary party. The lack of such evidence led the court to question why the ECP sided with the ruling party’s stance despite the evidence to the contrary.

Justice Ayesha Malik, in a separate note, sharply criticized the ECP for exceeding its authority. She questioned why the commission, despite clear guidance from the Supreme Court, continued to act in ways that appeared to prioritize political interests over its constitutional duties. According to Justice Malik, the ECP’s primary responsibility is to ensure the conduct of free, fair, and transparent elections. In the case of this lawmaker’s de-seating, however, the ECP seemed to act in a manner that was inconsistent with its core role within the framework of constitutional democracy.

Justice Malik reiterated that the ECP is not meant to be the master of political processes but rather a neutral organ tasked with overseeing the electoral system. It is not within the commission’s purview to take actions that could potentially disenfranchise elected representatives and undermine the legitimacy of the government. Instead, its duty is to ensure that those who are duly elected by the people remain in office, thereby safeguarding the integrity of the electoral system and the legitimacy of the government that emerges from it.

In her conclusion, Justice Malik expressed regret over the ECP’s apparent disregard for the constitutional principles that guide its functions. Despite the Supreme Court’s previous pronouncements, the ECP continues to operate as if it is above reproach, undermining other constitutional institutions and the fundamental right to vote. This attitude, Justice Malik suggests, is a troubling sign of the commission’s institutional contempt and disregard for the public trust placed in it.

The ECP’s conduct in this case is not an isolated incident. In fact, this is far from the first time the commission has faced criticism for overstepping its constitutional limits. Time and again, the ECP has been accused of acting in a manner that is inconsistent with its duty to uphold electoral transparency, fairness, and integrity. Its repeated disregard for these standards has contributed to a sense of political instability in Pakistan, undermining the public’s confidence in the government and its institutions.

The consequences of the ECP’s actions are evident. Political instability continues to plague Pakistan, with the government struggling to maintain its legitimacy and credibility. The public’s disillusionment with the political process is growing, and many citizens have begun to question whether the state has the capacity to fulfill its basic responsibilities. The ECP, by failing to correct its course, is only exacerbating these issues.

One of the primary responsibilities of any electoral body is to act as a neutral, impartial entity that ensures the smooth functioning of the democratic process. The ECP, however, seems to have lost sight of this fundamental role. Instead of acting as an enabler of democracy, it has increasingly become embroiled in partisan political affairs, aligning itself with the interests of the ruling party and making decisions that serve to undermine the democratic process. This has not only compromised the fairness of elections but also eroded the trust that the public places in the electoral system.

The role of the ECP in ensuring free and fair elections cannot be overstated. When the commission fails in this duty, it has far-reaching consequences for the legitimacy of the government and the political system as a whole. In this case, the ECP’s decision to de-seat a lawmaker without sufficient evidence has led to questions about the transparency of the electoral process and the integrity of the institutions that are supposed to oversee it.

Pl watch the video and subscribe to the YouTube channel of republicpolicy.com

Pakistan has long struggled with issues of political instability and a lack of trust in its institutions. The ECP, as the body responsible for overseeing elections and maintaining electoral integrity, has a critical role to play in restoring public confidence in the political system. However, its repeated missteps and failure to adhere to its constitutional duties have only compounded the country’s political challenges.

The government’s legitimacy is inextricably tied to the credibility of the electoral process. When the ECP acts in a way that appears politically motivated or biased, it undermines the foundation of the democratic system. This, in turn, fuels public disillusionment and political unrest, further destabilizing the country.

The Election Commission of Pakistan must reassess its approach to its constitutional duties and work to restore public confidence in the electoral process. Its actions must be guided by a commitment to fairness, transparency, and impartiality. The ECP should refrain from making decisions that serve partisan interests and instead focus on its core responsibility—ensuring that the democratic process functions smoothly and that elected representatives remain in office as mandated by the people.

The Supreme Court’s reprimand and Justice Malik’s critique serve as crucial reminders of the ECP’s constitutional obligations. The commission must take these lessons to heart and realign its actions with the principles that underpin Pakistan’s democratic system. Only then can it hope to regain the trust of the public and play a constructive role in ensuring that Pakistan’s democracy remains strong and resilient.

Cha

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Latest Videos