Whither ECP?

Farhatullah Babar wonders why political parties were not consulted on troop deployment for security of KP Assembly elections

Whither ECP?
On June 19, the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) issued an unprecedented notification saying, “Pakistan’s armed forces shall assist Election Commission of Pakistan and make necessary security arrangements for conduct of elections in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Assembly in the new districts of the province scheduled to be held on July 20, 2019.” The armed forces had two distinct functions: the first, to assist the commission and second, to make its own security arrangements as it deemed fit independent of the commission itself.

Explaining further, the ECP said that the armed forces “shall be deployed inside and outside all polling stations.” Such deployment is not just for July 20, the day of the election, but will extend for four days, “from July 18 to July, 21.”

Even after voting ends, “the troops shall be deployed at the offices of the Returning Officers till the consolidation of the election results,” meaning that the vote count will also be done under the watch of the armed forces.

Further, they shall also be deployed at “all training venues for the training of presiding officers and assistant presiding officers and polling officers from June 24 June to July 7, 2019.”

Troops shall also be deployed at the Printing Corporation of Pakistan for printing of ballot papers and transporting them to various places.
Elections, much like justice, must not only be free and fair but also be seen as such. Without this, voters will suspect that their mandate has indeed been stolen

The troops will set up mobile teams in all 16 constituencies and officers, including junior commissioned officers, “shall exercise powers of magistrate First Class” to try offences “in a summary manner.”

The troops have been called in aid of civil power under Article 245 of the Constitution and Sections 4 and 5 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, the notification said.

Literally all functions - from printing of ballot papers to their transportation, from training of polling staff to the vote count, and from making security arrangements on their own to trying offences without interference from courts will - be performed by the troops without any civilian participation, let alone oversight.

The notification is based on a wrong and unacceptable assumption: that only officers of the armed forces, and not civilians, are capable of good conduct, efficiency and delivering justice.

This notification was issued without consultation with political parties and the ECP also quietly abdicated all its constitutional responsibilities. Why? Article 220 of the Constitution requires all executive authorities to assist the commission in holding free and fair elections. Can it be interpreted to abdicate responsibility also? What, then, is the need for the commission? It may well pack up and go home.

Calling the army under Article 245 of the Constitution means that orders of officers, including JCOs, cannot be questioned in any court. Sub Section III of Article 245 states, “A High Court shall not exercise any jurisdiction under Article 199 in relation to any area in which the armed forces of Pakistan are acting in aid of civil power.”

The stage has thus been set to allow the armed forces do whatever they want before polling, on voting day and during the vote count, without any oversight of the Parliament, the courts and even the ECP itself. These erstwhile tribal areas are already a black hole for information and visitors from outside. Who will trust the fairness of the polls?

Why is this happening? Is it because some elements, not happy with the people voting despite all manipulations, want to achieve pre-determined results?

During the 2013 elections, when the law and order situation was much worse 70,000 troops were deployed outside the polling stations. They had no magisterial powers and there were no mobile courts. During the 2018 elections, when the security situation had improved, over 370,000 troops were deployed. Initially, they were given magisterial powers but when political parties protested, these powers were withdrawn but not before achieving the purpose of instilling fear in people. The suspicion caused by this announcement and later its withdrawal lingers to this day.

An unlimited number of troops can be deployed both inside and outside polling stations, in training centres and for vote counts in the July 20 polls. They will also have magisterial powers, dispense “justice” through mobile court in a summary manner and try voters for terrorism without any judicial oversight.

In the past, foreign observers as well as local monitoring teams openly questioned such large scale deployment of troops on polling days thus: “Such measures are unprecedented and border dangerously on micro-management by an institution that should not be involved so closely in what is strictly a civilian mandate.” Now it could be worse.

Organised attacks on sensitive polling stations can only be mounted from outside. Disagreements and disputes inside polling stations can be handled by civilian law enforcers at the disposal of the presiding officer. Why deploy troops inside polling stations, unless the intention is to intimidate voters?

When political parties protested at the time of the last general elections that they had not been consulted on troop deployment, the ECP officials insisted that they had. However, when challenged, the commission failed to produce copy of minutes of the meeting in support of this claim.

Elections, much like justice, must not only be free and fair but also be seen as such. Without this, voters will suspect that their mandate has indeed been stolen. Security cannot be made an excuse to give carte blanche to the military. Ensuring that voters cast votes without fear, intimidation and coercion by men in uniform is critical to free and fair elections.

The people of erstwhile tribal areas have suffered immensely over the past two decades. It will be a great tragedy if  young people are forced to conclude that they were robbed of their mandate as the state is unwilling to give up on its policies of the past.

The writer is a former senator