MORE than two-thirds of almost 814 million voters turned out to vote in the latest Indian election. The political parties accepted the result, congratulated the winner and moved on. No questions about the credibility of the election were raised. No charges of rigging by the Election Commission of India were hurled.

In Pakistan, the situation is quite different. A year after the elections, some mainstream political parties are contesting the poll results, raising questions about the partiality of the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) and providing ‘evidence’ that they were cheated. The legitimacy of the government is being challenged, raising concerns about democratic stability in the country.

What constitutes a major difference between the two countries is the role of their respective election commissions. Undoubtedly, the election commission in India is independent; its counterpart in Pakistan may be independent but it is toothless, or acts in such a way. Its ineffective control over the executive and judicial officials engaged to assist in election administration or otherwise leaves sufficient space for a multitude of actors to influence the electoral processes at various stages, thereby creating issues of credibility.

The ECP is unable to control them completely as it admitted in at least one of its statements to the press in recent weeks, and now in its five-year strategic plan that has been circulated among a wider audience for consultation and improvement. The commission is right as far as its acknowledgement of lack of authority is concerned.

Postings and transfers of executive and judicial officials through the election process; widespread and visible breach of campaign finance limits; subjective scrutiny — rather, humiliation — of candidates; documented violations of voting and counting processes; typographical and arithmetical errors (intentional or unintentional) in documentation and consolidation of results; absence of a swift election-complaint handling mechanism; an abysmally high number of votes (1.5 million) rejected and not counted; and the refusal of returning officers in at least 114 constituencies to share the result forms despite ECP instructions are some flagrant violations documented during the 2013 polls. These need to be addressed.

These irregularities are neither new, nor have they been raised for the first time. However, this time the claims of irregularities, politically articulated as rigging, are rather loud and not dying down, perhaps because the expectations of voters and parties for improved elections were raised after the appointment of the chief and members of the ECP through political consensus with a buy-in even from parties which are now at the forefront of the demand for their resignation.

Moral and ethical considerations aside, the ECP members simply cannot be removed in any other way than what is prescribed for the impeachment of a judge of a higher court through action by the Supreme Judicial Council. This constitutional protection to the term of members also underlines their independence.

The ECP can, however, work overtime to establish its credibility by undertaking an honest assessment of the 2013 general election in an effort to hold the erring officials, whether executive or judicial, accountable in line with Section 91 of the Representation of Peoples Act 1976.

The 18th and 20th Amendments to the Constitution might have enabled a more transparent mechanism for the appointment of the chief and members of the ECP, in addition to protecting their tenure, but subsequent legislative, regulatory and implementation-level reforms were never introduced to translate the commission’s independence into authority.

The much-hyped independence, therefore, could not be translated into the assertion and enforcement of authority that is needed to rein in a multitude of state as well as political actors who have an interest in influencing the result. The lacunae in the election law enable individuals as well as institutions to influence the election process, which needs to be completely insulated from executive and judicial interference.

While the nature and scope of election reforms need to be defined by the political parties themselves through a political dialogue, any effort must strive to achieve a transparent, accountable and efficient election system that inspires public trust, a perquisite for the credibility of future elections. The ECP must be given complete power over approving election rules, budget, organisational structure and operations.

Secondly, complete authority is a prerequisite to enable the ECP to be in control of the conduct of elections and not just be a bystander. The commission’s orders given to the executive during the election process must be binding. In addition, election law must also grant full authority over seconded staff to direct, sanction and remove such staff while conducting elections on its behalf.

Thirdly, judicial officers should not be entrusted with election duty as it causes a conflict of interest. In addition, the judiciary’s role in an appellate capacity needs to be reinforced to ensure the swift disposal of electoral complaints and petitions.

But what will be critically important is the process to finalise electoral reforms. A joint parliamentary committee with an overall mandate may be formed with proportional representation of the parties in the two houses, provided that all parties in parliament have at least one member. This may be a good starting point.

With the shadows of instability lurking in the background, the questions being raised about the quality and credibility of the 2013 general election and demands for electoral reforms need to be addressed as they are critical to political stability and the consolidation of democracy in Pakistan.

The writer works with the Free and Fair Election Network.

Published in Dawn, May 24th, 2014