To prove a point, one of our reporters cast four votes in the “presidential” referendum yesterday, all in favour of General Pervez Musharraf, in four different polling stations within a kilometre radius. Another outwitted her by stamping six votes in the general’s favour. The story is much the same across the country. One could vote as many times as one desired and many did. This is adult franchise taken to preposterous limits for dubious ends. Think of it, 71 percent turnout of which 97.5 percent voted ‘yes’. So much for the credibility of the exercise.
If ever there was a case of deliberate institutional rigging, this was it. No formal ID was required for voting. There were no constituency lists. The opposition wasn’t allowed to canvass votes against the referendum. Billions were doled out to hire crowds for pro-Musharraf rallies and lug pro-Musharraf voters to the polling stations. The number of polling booths was increased tenfold. And the voting age was reduced from 21 to 18 years so that millions of new voters without any memory of the military’s disastrous interventions in 1958 and 1977 could be added to the kitty.
Worse, much worse, tens of millions of low and middle level civil servants, factory workers, school teachers, peons, janitors, jail inmates, soldiers, paramilitary troops, policemen etc were ordered by private and public employers to shape up or ship out. This is unprecedented even in Pakistan’s flawed electoral history. Just think of it. Wardens ordering prisoners to stamp “yes” on ballot papers. Department heads taking roll calls and lining up subordinates at special polling station on the premises. Policemen on the streets and rangers on border patrol, even as their votes were being stuffed in ballot boxes and winging their way to headquarters. The most appalling aspect of this sordid affair was the despicable role of the private sector. Of capitalists, bankers, factory owners, school/college owners/principals, traders and businessmen ordering their employees to queue up for General Musharraf. Of multinationals that went overboard in rustling up their workers. “Captive” voters in the hands of capricious elites. Disgraceful. If April 30 was a sad day for democracy, the complicity of civil society should not go un-remarked.
Why did General Musharraf go for an overkill when every pundit with even a remote memory of the farcical presidential referendum held by General Zia ul Haq in 1984 had advised against it?
The question of legitimacy haunts every dictator and General Musharraf is no exception, however benign his attitude towards the press or however cooperative his response to the international community’s war against terrorism. Thus the common perception is that an overwhelming “yes” in the presidential referendum should give General Musharraf a degree of civilian legitimacy that is sorely lacking in him. This is buttressed by the fact that the Supreme Court of Pakistan has said that he is perfectly entitled to hold such a referendum. But the facts belie this argument.
The Supreme Court has not said that this referendum is a constitutional substitute for a presidential election. In fact, it has left that issue to be resolved by the parliament that comes into being after the next general elections in October. Nor does a referendum, however credible or successful, under a provisional constitutional order legitimizing a military coup (which is the legal umbrella under which General Musharraf is currently operating), eliminate the requirement for a parliamentary endorsement after the constitution has been fully restored. Indeed, every action that General Musharraf has taken in the last three years will require a constitutional sanction by means of a two-thirds majority in the next parliament. So what is the point of a referendum today if, in the ultimate analysis, General Musharraf’s fate lies in the hands of a parliament that is yet to be born?
The answer is that the referendum was never meant to be an exercise in acquiring legitimacy. Instead, it is an attempt to flex muscle and browbeat intransigent political opponents to join the Musharraf camp so that a King’s Party or Alliance can be cobbled to win the next general elections and become a dutiful parliamentary appendage to President General Musharraf. Indeed, General Musharraf admitted as much when he said that he was conducting this exercise because he wanted “to get the fence-sitters off the fence”, alluding to the many political stalwarts in the country who had not yet deserted the two mainstream parties led by Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif. Has he succeeded in his objective of ensuring, as he put it once, an “upper hand in parliament”?
No. Whatever the government may claim, the opposition will certainly be emboldened by the referendum’s lack of credibility at home and abroad. Indeed, an element of defiance could creep into the main opposition parties, forcing General Musharraf to adopt repressive policies, which in turn would hurt his benign image and undermine his credibility further. The fear is that in the ensuing tussle for the hearts and minds of Pakistanis in the run-up to the October elections, General Musharraf may be erroneously advised to postpone the elections on some pretext or the other or try and rig them massively to thwart his opponents. In the event, the loss won’t be his only. It will be Pakistan’s too.