ANOTHER phase in the country’s turbulent politics opened with the Supreme Court ruling that elections to the Punjab and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa assemblies should be held within the constitutionally stipulated 90-day period. The assemblies were dissolved in January but the PDM government, which installed caretaker administrations in the two provinces, prevented their governors from fixing a poll date.

In the face of this reluctance, consultations by the Election Commission of Pakistan went nowhere. When President Arif Alvi announced an election date the government condemned this action while the ECP held back from doing anything.

Against the backdrop of this confusion and uncertainty, the SC was obliged to step in and take suo motu notice of a matter which was of constitutional importance and had a time-bound nature. In a 3-2 verdict, the apex court directed the president to suggest a date for the Punjab poll and Governor Ghulam Ali a date for elections in KP after consultation with the ECP. If elections could not be held within 90 days, the ruling said, then ECP should propose a date that “deviates to the barest minimum” from that deadline. No sooner had the SC decision been announced when spokespersons of the ruling coalition began to question the judgement and deploy various arguments against it.

The most curious and legally bizarre interpretation came from the attorney general. He argued that the petition had actually been dismissed 4-3, as two judges had dissented from the verdict, while another two judges had earlier recused themselves from the hearing; that meant the ‘majority decision’ was not in support of the SC ruling and was, instead, in the government’s favour.

The federal law minister echoed this line in TV interviews claiming he was speaking in his personal capacity. Meanwhile, Interior Minister Rana Sanaullah claimed, equally disingenuously, that “The petition of PTI stands rejected and suo motu proceedings stand dropped in the light of the decision.”

The government only signalled its weakness by these interpretations as well as place itself in a potentially disadvantaged position if not on a collision course with the senior judiciary in the days to come. The debate and controversy it aimed to rake up did little to obscure the fact that the verdict was a setback for the ruling coalition, which just doesn’t want to go to the polls.

Last month, when the Lahore High Court ordered the ECP to consult the PDM-appointed governor, Baligh ur Rahman on the poll date, he challenged this and went into an intra-court appeal. Subsequently, ECP too filed a similar appeal.

Fresh elections are the only means to escape from the political quagmire.

The ruling coalition now has little choice but to implement the SC judgement, which is legally and constitutionally binding. ECP moved to comply with the order by writing to President Alvi proposing Punjab polls can be held between April 30 and May 7.

Alvi has approved April 30 as the election date. If the government refuses to comply with the SC ruling it will be defiance of the apex court, which will lay it open to contempt proceedings.

The ruling coalition can now either comply reluctantly or in a way that shows leadership and responsibility. Although it is loath to engage with opposition leader Imran Khan, who also refuses to talk to the government, it should make an effort to reach out to him and see if a mutually acceptable date for general elections can be agreed.

If the effort succeeds, for which Khan would also have to show uncharacteristic flexibility, national and provincial elections can be held simultaneously, on the same day, the way they always have in the past.

The SC even offered this opportunity when during the proceedings it asked the legal counsel of both political parties to consult with their leadership on a consensus date. But this opportunity was not seized by political leaders. Although time is short, if agreement on simultaneous elections can still be reached by the warring sides the SC can be approached and conveyed the commonly agreed date. The court will likely sanction such an outcome.

On the other hand, in the absence of an accord, an anomalous situation would be created if provincial elections in Punjab and KP are held in April and national polls in, say, October/November, after the National Assembly completes full term in August.

That would mean that there will be elected and not neutral caretaker governments in place when general elections take place. The spirit behind Article 224 1-A of the Constitution would be defeated. This enjoins the government and opposition to agree on installing caretaker governments to oversee elections. More legal challenges can then be expected on this issue before general elections are anywhere near.

There are other more consequential political implications of holding provincial and general elections on different dates. The PDM government, seeking to delay national polls, seems to overlook the fact that if PTI was to do exceptionally well in the provincial elections, this would set the template for general elections. Khan would have the political momentum with him to take his party more easily past the winning post later.

If PDM parties feel they need to buy time to improve their electoral prospects, it defies logic as to how their position will change in any appreciable way in a few months. If anything, the government is losing political ground in the face of soaring inflation, sky rocketing energy and fuel prices and a worsening economy.

Indeed, if ‘salvaging the economy’ was one of the key justifications for the PDM government to hang on to power, it is now wearing thin. The economy is in meltdown mode, the IMF deal remains elusive, the rupee is in freefall and market/business confidence is hitting an all-time low. International rating agencies have again begun to warn that Pakistan might default on its sovereign debt.

The finance minister’s typically angry response does nothing to calm markets. With the political and economic crisis posing a mounting challenge to the country’s stability, elections and a fresh mandate may be the only way out of the present quagmire.

The writer is a former ambassador to the US, UK & UN.

Published in Dawn, March 6th, 2023