THE Senate elections have been embroiled in a bigger controversy than was required. At multiple levels there are complications unfolding on a daily basis that reflect badly on the system as a whole. While the ruling PTI has aggressively propagated an open ballot for the Senate elections, its subsequent actions have raised questions that go beyond the specifically legal ones. The awarding of tickets, and the disputes arising from this process, are a manifestation of the politics that underlie these Senate elections. In Balochistan for instance, the PTI announced a ticket for a person who was not even a member of the party. When questioned, party people tried to justify this decision by saying that he was a joint candidate for the PTI and its coalition partner BAP. However, after an outcry from the local rank and file of the party in the province, the PTI took back the ticket from him. He then decided to contest as an independent after which the BAP adopted him as a candidate, which essentially means that if he wins, he will still be allied with the PTI. The machinations involved in electoral calculations leave little space for attaining and sustaining the moral high ground.

The legal ground also seems fairly shaky. The Supreme Court is hearing the case regarding the mode of balloting for the Senate elections even though the Election Commission has stated categorically that it believes only a constitutional amendment can change the process to an open ballot election. However, during the hearing some honourable judges in their comments remarked that seats in the Senate for a party should proportionally align with the total strength of the party in the assemblies. In such a case would there be any need to hold elections? All parties could be allocated seats as per their strength in the electoral college and that would settle the issue. The whole purpose of holding an election, even an indirect one, is to enable the people’s representatives to use their judgement to make a choice that is not chained to their party position. These aspects of the issue would have come up in a debate if the matter had been processed through parliament. It may be prudent for all stakeholders to not rush to judgement on a matter that calls for deeper thinking and broader input. Democracy requires patience and due diligence to deliver even if urgency appears of utmost importance.

Published in Dawn, February 19th, 2021