On July 12, through a short order, a thirteen-member bench of Pakistan’s Supreme Court (SC) declared unanimously (13-0) that the decision of the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) to strip the Pakistan Tehrek-i-Insaf (PTI) of its electoral symbol – to contest general elections of February 8 – was illegal. Moreover, through a majority (8-5), the bench also declared that the PTI was eligible for around twenty reserved (quota) seats for women and non-Muslim minorities in the National Assembly under the concept of proportional representation. The same would be implications for the provincial assemblies.
It was the Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC) which had challenged the decisions of the ECP and the Peshawar High Court before the SC. The SIC did so because it had embraced the PTI members after they could not contest general elections on their party’s tickets and symbol. Instead, they had contested the elections as independent candidates, and then joined the SIC for existence as a cohort, despite the fact that the SIC did not contest the elections, nor did it submit a list of its candidates for reserved seats. Interestingly, after the elections, the ECP also distributed the reserved seats (which otherwise were meant for the PTI) amongst other political parties that had won the elections.
The SC has addressed two questions: first if the decision of the ECP to deny an electoral symbol to the PTI was correct, and second, if the PTI was eligible for reserved seats. Through its short order, the SC has declared that the ECP misinterpreted the SC’s judgment (dated 13 January 2024), which was regarding the non-holding of intra-party elections of the PTI, and wrongfully denied an electoral symbol to the PTI, members of which were then constrained to contest the elections independently and seek refuge afterward in another political party to preserve their cluster. Second, the ECP had no authority to distribute the reserved seats (meant for the PTI) amongst other political parties. That is, it was not the fault of the PTI but of the ECP for creating the question that had brought the SIC to knock at the door of the SC.
In principle, the ECP should take a stance to defend its decision of divesting the PTI of any asked electoral symbol just before the February 8 elections, as this decision was the root cause of subsequent developments. Interestingly, the ECP is silent, but certain commentators are vociferous of the SC’s decision. One wonders why the SC should have condoned the mistake of the ECP, which unlawfully declared validly nominated candidates of a political party (the PTI) to be independent candidates. Another interesting question is this: why are there so many shrilling voices, furious talk shows, and fuming press conferences (under one rubric or the other) active to condemn the SC’s decision (and to appreciate the ECP)?
The 13-member bench has set the baseline unanimously: the ECP was in the wrong to deny the PTI its electoral symbol. This is how unlawful ab initio (from the beginning) comes into play. That is it. A detailed decision is bound to predicate on the same ground zero. This point brings the discussion to the next point: can anyone dare impose an emergency or declare martial law in an effort to ward off the implementation of the SC’s decision? The answer is in the negative. Interestingly, the salience of the SC’s decision is not the 8-5 part of the judgment, but the 13-0 one. The 8-5 part seeks its origin (and justification) from the 13-0 part. In the context of cause and effect, 13-0 identified the cause, whereas 8-5 attended to the effect. No review petition can overturn the 13-0 part, the first embankment; the 8-5 part is subordinate.
Generally speaking, the point is not if Article 6 is still potent to stave off any unconstitutional misconduct, the point is whether the enormity of the economic crisis is comprehensible or not. Article 6 tailed General Pervez Musharraf until a medical certificate rescued him to escape from Pakistan. The counter-poise of the certificate remained dearer to him. Nevertheless, the current haunting challenge is bigger than that of Article 6. It is the economy that is wagging the proverbial dog. The plunge of the economy is unsparing. Pakistan is still teetering on the brink of sovereign default. It has to pay around $2 billion a month for the next three financial years to service external liabilities. Any misadventure is bound to hurtle the country into the void of socio-economic unrest, which can spiral into any doomed direction. All recent budgetary allocations will turn turtle, disarrayed. The liability of the fallout will have to be borne by someone. Who will be the hapless volunteer?
A larger problem is that a country that was obtained through the democratic process of elections (1945-46) is now boiled down to manipulating the electoral process in broad daylight to permit one party to hold the reins of power and not the other. The underlying flawed assumption is that unfair elections can engender a fair democratic dispensation. The scornful practice of exclusion and inclusion might have strengthened certain quarters, but it has disheartened the people, who yearn for participatory democracy and associated accountable governance. When they are asked to pay taxes to run the country financially, they question their relevance in the system. The dissociation has jeopardized the politico-economic future of Pakistan.
Dr Qaisar Rashid
The writer is a freelance columnist. He can be reached at qaisarrashid@yahoo.com