ELECTIONS results are generally a contentious affair in Pakistan. Although the first general election in 1970 is considered to have been relatively fair, there were many complaints about the high-handedness of the Awami League musclemen in what was then East Pakistan, while the Gen Yahya regime was accused of being supportive of Khan Abdul Qayyum Khan’s faction of Muslim League.

The perception about the lack of fairness has been clear in each of the preceding 11 elections. The 12th general election held on Feb 8 is no exception. Even the PTI, which supported independent candidates and emerged as the largest single group (if not a party because of the denial of its election symbol), is protesting against the election results. The PTI and almost all other political parties are up in arms against what they see as the large-scale manipulation of poll results. Most complaints centre around the alleged discrepancies between the vote count transmitted by the presiding officers on Form-45 and the consolidation of the polling station results in Form 47 at the returning officers’ office to obtain the constituency result. These allegations are serious but not established yet.

Although polling was generally orderly except for isolated reports of assault on some polling stations and the delayed arrival of polling staff, all hell broke loose when none of the 859 returning officers was able to announce the provisional results of his respective constituency by the deadline of 2 am the following day, in accordance with Section 13(3) of the Elections Act, 2017. Around 3 am, various TV channels telecasting live progressive polling station results based on their reporters’ dispatches, reported that the chief election commissioner had warned the ROs to announce provisional results in the next half an hour or face suspension. Neither were the results announced nor any action taken against the ROs in that period, suggesting possible defiance by them.

The same law required that if, for any reason, the results were incomplete by 2 am, the RO should communicate to the ECP the provisional results as consolidated till that time, along with reasons for the delay in writing, and send the complete provisional results as soon as compiled but no later than 10 am. Only a small fraction of the results was announced by even this deadline.

This delay became the subject of intense discussion during the marathon election transmissions telecast by almost all TV news channels. Some channels emphasised that if they, with the help of Forms 45 collected by their reporters, could announce the result of 25,000 polling stations, why were the ROs able to announce the results of only 10,000. This line of argument seriously damaged the credibility of the process of consolidation of results by the ROs.

Did the ROs intentionally delay the announcement of results, in order to facilitate any possible manipulation?

Since TV channels were giving progressive results, which indicated the winning or losing position of a candidate on the basis of, in some cases, the results of as few as 10 per cent polling stations by midnight when most viewers were up, a relatively complete result of a constituency presented a different candidate as the winner the next day, creating a perception that most results were manipulated overnight. On-going media discussions further fuelled the theory that the delay in announcing results was deliberate to manipulate the results.

These negative perceptions could have been effectively countered if a proper explanation for the delay was offered in time, but sadly, this did not happen.

Since the ECP had widely publicised its Election Management System and it was emphasised that it has been designed keeping in mind the lessons learnt from the infamous failure of the Result Transmission System in the 2018 election, people started drawing parallels between the fate of the two systems as soon as the news of delay started hitting the TV screens.

It is true that the shutdown of the mobile phone system and internet services played an important role in disrupting the plans to transmit polling station results to ROs through mobile phones, but such an eventuality could have been foreseen because the closure of mobile phone and internet services was being talked about for weeks before the election. In the absence of the transmission of polling station results by mobile phones, the presiding officers were supposed to personally carry the results to their respective RO office but this part of the logistics operation was grossly mismanaged.

Many presiding officers narrated stories of how they were prevented from leaving for the RO’s office until security staff was available to escort them. The availability of the security escort took hours in many cases, and as 200 to 300 presiding office converged on the RO’s office, it took a long time handing over the sensitive cargo to the concerned ROs. All these logistical challenges could have been easily foreseen and their mitigation planned because these operational issues are faced in each election.

Did the ROs intentionally delay the announcement of results, at least in some selected constituencies, in order to facilitate any possible manipulation? This will be the darkest blot on the electoral machinery even if such a thing happened in just a fraction of the constituencies. It will be only fair if the ECP undertakes serious inquest about the conduct of ROs.

Since results have been routinely delayed in several consecutive general elections including the one in 2018, and now in 2024, the incoming parliament must debate whether a deadline of 2 am and then 10 am to announce complete results is feasible.

President Arif Alvi also chose to comment on the delay, believing that electronic voting machines could have avoided this situation. EVMs could have certainly speeded up the counting at polling stations but the counting at the latter was hardly the problem. The problem was the transmission of results to the RO and the tabulation at the RO’s office. EVMs can hardly help in these operations.

The writer is president of the Pakistan Institute of Legislative Development And Transparency.

president@pildat.org

X: @ABMPildat

Published in Dawn, February 17th, 2024