Almost all
the countries of the modern world have democracy as the form of government.
Democracy seems to be overwhelmingly influencing and has burgeoned over all
other forms of government. Though, few countries still have archaic forms of
government, i.e. Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Brunei, UAE, etc. United Kingdom also
has certain form (monarchy) but it doesn’t have any other role than being ceremonial
or nominal head. Anyhow in countries having democracies, representatives are
elected through General Elections.
Now the
question arises about the representative status of elections. For this, the
turnout rate is considered to be the variable of checking how well general
public is being represented. Among many other drawbacks of democracy, low
turnout is also enlisted. During Zia regime, the highest turnout occurred for
the first time (and for the last time till today) in Pakistan, i.e. more or less 52%
voter cast their votes. But average turnout has remained almost 30-35%
throughout the history of Pakistan’s General Elections. The figure is
self-explanatory that how ‘well’ people have been represented. Even if the
figure of 52% is seen, the one which is considered to be highly representative
in Pakistan and so the dictatorial government rejoiced to have the label of
‘true’ public representation, it still fails to get representation of almost
half of the voters.
Here, low
turnout forces to ponder that what have been the reasons behind such an
apathetic behavior of the nation.
Socio-economic
factors of any country determine the voting habit of the nation. In particular,
Pakistan’s turnout is badly affected by its socio-economic factors. Education
plays dynamic role in public awareness. The more the people are educated, the
more they likely to vote since it is there in their knowledge that they are
going to suffer if wrong person gets elected just because of their non-voting
behavior. Ethnicity and race also affect the voting but its effect is
debatable. It is less likely to happen that candidate doesn’t belong to the
caste of the majority of the population of the certain constituency. So, even if he/she
belongs to other caste – the one whose population is comparatively less in
number – generally the certain number of people is seen to vote who otherwise
too vote.
A big
portion of population becomes ambivalent about voting when it comes to the
hereditary politics. Most of the candidates belong to the families of those who
are already or have remained in the politics. Unavailability of the choice of
non-hereditary candidate, sometimes makes voters not to vote as they think that
each of the candidates of certain constituency belongs to the family of the
person who has remained a despot in their area and had never involved in public
welfare.
It is
witnessed that the lack of confidence on electoral process also prevents people
not to perform their civic duty of voting. General perception of the planned
rigging by the Establishment adds fuel to the fire.
Historically,
democracy has failed to function efficiently and effectively in Pakistan. It
could not deliver what was in manifesto. Belligerent and warlike politicians
seldom worked for the people and always fought for their vested interests. This
is also a factor of apathy of the people in the voting process.
Similarly,
many other factors are there keeping people aloof from their civic duty. These
may include security concerns at polling-stations, inconvenient location of
polling-stations, military oversight of the democracy, etc. This public
aloofness proved to be a blight on the whole country.
The
politicians of inefficient, callow, unfeeling, corrupt, immoral, illiterate
mentality are the consequential output of the public apathy. They do what they
are meant to do. Vested interest is interpreted as ‘national interest’.
Corruption is their label. Deceiving people is their duty. In short, current
apocalypse of Pakistan is just because of the ‘blessings’ of their steps in
‘greater national interest’. Here, it can be argued that it is the military,
not the politicians, who ruined the country. The counter argument is very
simple: had belligerent politicians not failed to run the democracy, military
would never have been intervened. Hence, the fault is of the politicians who
are merely the result of Public apathy in electoral process.
Here comes
the need to prove how the voters, who don’t vote in elections, are sole
responsible for the election of such representatives. For this, the domestic
political system needs to be critically analyzed.
In domestic
politics, especially in rural areas, parameters to elect representative are not
that which are generally perceived. It is unfortunate, though fact, that nearly
the whole rural population – which constitutes a major portion of the total
population and considered to have a decisive role in determining the ruling
party – doesn’t take the cognizance of candidate’s credibility and all of his
character related issues. They just vote for a person who comes to their
happy/sad occasions, i.e. marriages and funerals. Furthermore their
Thana/Kochehry related issues are also taken under consideration while voting,
i.e. whether the candidate can resolve these issues. Now, the point to be noted
here is to see how this partisanship badly affects.
Most of the
people, who are among the 30-35% turnout, belong to the ‘influenced class’. A
person, who is candidate’s relative, comes under the category of the influenced
class. Similarly, the people who are town-mates, caste-mates, who come under
certain pressure-group (Dharra), and who belong to certain Chaudry’s territory
(Number-Dari) are also enlisted among the influenced class. This influenced
class doesn’t base their vote on any rationale rather they just consider their
genial or forced relation with their influencer. Therefore, they can’t rightly
arbitrate and consequentially the wrong person is elected. Here comes the issue
about the remaining 65-70% voters of the Electoral College.
This
remaining Electoral College is termed as ‘neutral class’. They have no others’
influence over their decision to vote. Any of the influencers has nothing to do
with their decision to vote as they are not influenced because of their
independence. One may argue that how they can’t be influenced when they
may belong to certain caste, town, etc. This argument does not suit as not
every person weighs these conservative approaches. The people, who consider
these approaches, have already been included in the list of influenced class
which comprises 30-35% of voters. Hence neutral class can rightly arbitrate
whether who is credible. But disappointingly, nearly 95% of them don’t vote and
resultantly the wrong, inadequate candidates are elected. So, it is categorically
visible that neutral class (70-65% of the Electoral College) is the responsible
for the election of the incapable politicians. Therefore, some kind of need to reform
arises.
Addressing
the problem of low turnout exacts the reforms from the government. The immediate
solution can be the compulsion of voting: for every voter it should be made
compulsory to cast vote otherwise face penalties. Now the question arises that
how compulsion on voting can be enforced?
For this
purpose, certain rules and regulations are to be made. There may come the need
of the constitutional amendment. Penalties, as already prescribed, must be made
to make it compulsory. There should be reasonable fine if a voter has not cast vote for no reason. And if there comes any reason, then show-cause notice
should be issued, e.g. medical certificate for illness. NADRA record can be
used to blacklist certain voters. Blacklisted people should be declared
ineligible of all kinds of jobs, business opportunities, certain rights,
privileges, and all other possible hurdles should be created. A person’s name
should only be reversed from the blacklist if he/she pays fine or shows cause
of not voting. All these rules and regulations are flexible and so are
debatable about their strictness but the guiding principle of penalty must be upheld.
Another
thing also needs to be incorporated. The election in any constituency with less
than 80% of the turnout should be declared null and void. And re-election
should be held. But this percentage is again flexible and can be debated over.
The logic behind this restriction is that of the representative status of
the election. The argument, how that much of the turnout can be possible
provided that average turnout is 30-35%, can be responded with the prescribed
compulsion of voting.
Besides
these rules and regulations, all other issues of low turnout also need to be
fixed. These may include awareness about civic duties, security threat in
elections, inconvenient location of the polling stations, etc.
The above
scenario will certainly result in drastic increase in turnout, as it is in
Australia, i.e. almost 95% average turnout because of compulsion of voting. The
voters will automatically come out for the voting since the opportunity cost of
not voting is far higher than that of voting itself. Consequently, with neutral
votes, the right people would be elected and it will have trickle-down effect
on the overall condition of the country. As a result, the beloved motherland will move ahead on the strong and stable footings of prosperity and public welfare.
