PAKISTAN is experiencing historical moments in terms of the changing relationship between the state and citizens. One of the moot points is the process of reconfiguration of the country’s election system, which needs wide-ranging reforms to be autonomous, transparent, accountable and efficient. Efforts are under way to rectify an election system that does not inspire public trust and confidence.

Among other reform strategies, electronic voting machines (EVMs) and biometric technologies for identification of voters are being considered by the Parliamentary Committee on Electoral Reforms as proposed by the Election Commission of Pakistan, as well as some political parties. The technology is being promoted in the name of improving efficiency of election management and strengthening public trust. The ECP has publicly said it will be ready to implement EVMs by 2016. This is ambitious, but is it wise?

Technology may be contributing to improving the quality of elections around the world, but it is not a replacement for trust, which depends on improved electoral processes and enhanced transparency in particular. Many countries have intelligently used technology to enhance the availability of user-friendly information on websites of election management bodies to improve transparency and thereby, public trust.

However, the ECP has a long way to go in meeting even the constitutional requirements for public access to information. It has failed to provide basic information, such as result forms, to the public, not due to capacity issues but because the regulatory framework does not require it to be transparent and accountable.

Many countries have given up the use of electronic voting machines.

While the ECP may have successfully implemented the short text messaging technology for voter information, its technological experiments have been highly controversial and some have failed completely. For example, Nadra has admitted that even the low-tech magnetic ink used to verify thumbprints during the 2013 election was a failure.

There are many questions that need to be looked into before a decision on the introduction of EVMs is agreed upon. Cost, capacity and contextual consideration are extremely important. While the cost of elections is already considerable, the acquisition of even the cheapest EVM solution will entail a bill that may be in the vicinity of $1 billion. The maintenance cost of these machines for later use will perhaps turn the ECP into one of the top budgeted institutions in Pakistan. Other infrastructural requirements such as power supply, communication technology and storage space will also add to the costs.

The capacity of the ECP as well as officials drawn from across the executive to implement the election is another aspect that needs serious consideration. According to the post-election review by the ECP, there were instances where presiding officers could not read the election result forms and were, therefore, unable to fill them properly. The investment on capacity building of officials, voters, candidates and their polling agents will itself be an undertaking costing millions and yet may not yield the kind of capacity that is required to use EVMs.

Keeping in view Pakistan’s legal and regulatory framework for elections that inhibits transparency and accountability, the introduction of EVMs will potentially further erode public confidence in the electoral process. In a country where voters and candidates are accustomed to seeing the entire voting and counting process in black and white — along with paperwork that details the number of doubtful votes at a polling station (though there are issues with the quality of the process) — EVMs will be a step backwards.

Many countries which have experimented with EVMs at a certain scale have reverted to paper ballot due to public concerns over the opaqueness of the system. In addition, the EVM provides limited vote recount and audit possibilities, which a traditional paper-based election system maximises. Germany, the UK, Ireland and Italy, to name a few, have given up the use of EVMs over issues of transparency, cost and efficacy in terms of improving public trust. So much so that the constitutional court in Germany declared EVMs unconstitutional in 2009, ruling that voting and counting should be open to public scrutiny and should not require any expert knowledge.

While most developed democracies have either never deployed or given up EVMs, those which continue to use the technology are struggling to improve transparency. EVMs have been highly criticised, especially in developing countries, as they do not leave a paper trail to audit votes. India, which has successfully deployed EVMs but only after more than 20 years of piloting, is considering introduction of the paper trail. Similarly, almost 40 states in the US now require a paper trail.

Another issue that needs to be considered is the citizens’ right to the secrecy of their ballot. Evidence suggests that EVMs — especially the ones which come with voter authentication systems — compromise this basic right. In the Netherlands, the use of EVMs was suspended for the same reason.

While cautious piloting of EVMs without compromising the verifiability and transparency of the voting and counting processes must not be ruled out, there are many other low-cost solutions that can be employed to improve the electoral processes. At a bare minimum, the ECP should be required to comprehensively overhaul its website to improve the quality and quantity of information shared with the public.

As a first step, the election result forms in an analysable format should be provided to the public. Similarly, automatic registration of citizens as voters at the time of issuance of CNICs must be legalised. A comprehensive result management system must be introduced to ensure accuracy and transparency of results. Security watermarks on ballots and biometric voter identification may also address many of the concerns raised during the recent elections in Pakistan.

EVMs must be a national decision that should not be made by a small group of bureaucrats, politicians and vendors alone; especially when the cost they would entail is exorbitant. A national public discourse is a prerequisite for clarity to establish that EVMs are the best and most sustainable solution to address trust issues and are fully in sync with the political and social context.

The writer works with the Free and Fair Election Network.

Published in Dawn, November 22th , 2014