From one to sixteen

In settling scores with Lahore’s Sharif clan, the descendants of Multan’s saints must not put the integrity of the country at stake.

By Kunwar Idris


WHILE many amongst us still feel nostalgic about (West) Pakistan’s being one unit, PML-N leader Makhdoom Javed Hashmi, if he could have it his way, would be satisfied with no less than 16 provinces to be carved out of the present four.

How this lonesome, tormented politician reconciles this number with provincial autonomy is hard to comprehend.

Ironically enough, the exponents of more provinces also want more powers for them. This is only one of the many contradictions in their glib campaign being run on selfish reasons. Prominent among the few who stand for retaining the present number is Balochistan’s outspoken chief minister Nawab Aslam Khan Raisani. He can foresee what most others do not: the more provinces there are, the fewer must be their powers. He would rather have one Balochistan but with greater autonomy.

The Punjab chief minister, Shahbaz Sharif, quite understandably, is opposed to the division of his province for he and his party both would be the losers. Yet, wary of opposing a populist concept, he has come up with a caveat that the basis for the creation of new provinces should be administrative and not ethnic. That is absurd, to say the least.

The province is a constitutional and legislative entity. It also represents, or is supposed to, the cultural, racial and linguistic homogeneity of the inhabitants in the context of a historical background. Systems or institutions to administer the province can be evolved to suit the convenience of the people by dividing the territory, howsoever sprawling or densely populated, without mutilating its unifying characteristics.

Administrative powers are always delegated, as indeed in the current practice, to divisions, districts, talukas, towns and villages down the line. The province essentially represents a fraternal bond that persuades the people to think and act alike for the common good.

In any case, unlike India, Pakistan has not chosen language as a defining feature in demarcating its provincial boundaries. Uttar Pradesh (even after its hilly part was hived off to form the smaller state of Uttarakhand) still has a population (199 million) larger than Pakistan’s total of 180 million. The defining feature of UP is Urdu/Hindi as a common language.

At the other end of the Indian spectrum, Goa with fewer than two million inhabitants has not been denied provincial status merely because of its small size in the presence of other unifying factors — chiefly its historical entity as a former Portuguese colony. The division of Indian Punjab was also based on language and not because the province was too large to administer.

At first glance, Pakistan’s provincial map may look tempting for redrawing boundaries and increasing the number of provinces. But, make no mistake, it would be stirring up a hornet’s nest. It is infinitely safer to live with the present incongruities of area and population than to let personal and parochial interests run riot. New provinces should not be created only to enable the district or regional politicians to become governors or chief ministers at the expense of the people without benefiting them. In the vanguard of the provincial campaign is south Punjab which has the least justification to be a province either on grounds of economy, culture, language or any other factor. Northern Punjab, if at all, is poorer. And the relatively more developed central Punjab is in no way usurping the resources of the south which is weighed down only by its own landed elite and shrine-keepers who could become more oppressive in a province they alone dominate.

Linguistically, Punjab is one entity. The regional dialects of the Punjabi language smoothly merge into each other in their long journey from the borders of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa to Sindh. Hindko of Peshawar, Potohari of Rawalpindi, Seraiki of Multan, Jangli of the intervening wilderness and the hard-core Punjabi of Lahore are understood, if not spoken, with equal ease across 1,000 miles. In short, language is no barrier to unity nor can it be a plausible ground for dividing the province.

Even less plausible, if not outright ludicrous, is the demand for a Bahawalpur province. It is as much a part of Punjab’s variegated landscape as any other. If its claim to special status lies in being a princely state of the colonial times, the first to be considered on that ground should be Kalat which was not merely a state but a suzerain of the Baloch tribes. To this day, the Khan of Kalat asserts that the state was conquered. It did not formally accede to Pakistan.

A variety of other claims are coming up. Hazara’s is old but not troublesome. For the first time, Baloch nationalists have been heard demanding the return of their forcibly separated kin of Dera Ghazi Khan, Rajanpur and Jacobabad to the motherland. Not to be found wanting, the Awami National Party wants the Pushtu-speaking parts of Balochistan to form a separate province of ‘Southern Pakhtunkhwa’.

All these demands sound frivolous and may be so treated. But not after south Punjab becomes a province which it must one day for it enjoys the backing of the ruling party. In settling scores with Lahore’s Sharif clan, Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani and the descendants of other Multan saints must not put the integrity of the country at stake. The rebels of Balochistan may be firing from their hideouts in the hills. The separatists of Sindh sit on the lifeline of the country.

Make voting compulsory

Now as more accurate electoral rolls are being prepared, it is time to develop a consensus on introducing compulsory voting along with other electoral reforms.

By Javed Jabbar


PAKISTAN has an electoral democracy but not a representative democracy. Post-1971, in eight general elections, the voter turnout has almost always been less than 50 per cent of registered voters.

Or one out of every two voters has never chosen a candidate or a party. Compulsory voting alone will redress this enormous gap between the unknown truth and the known election results.

If casting a ballot becomes as obligatory as possession of a national identity card is today, every adult citizen will establish a direct, physical interaction with the democratic process. The act of participation will reduce the alienation and sense of distance presently felt between at least half the population and the political democratic system. Even for those who vote and still feel alienated, the knowledge that the election result is the reflection of the totality of adult soci ety will help shrink the cleavage.

When virtually every adult votes, democracy will become truly representative of public opinion. At present, election results are often sceptically viewed as being representative of mainly tribal, ethnic, linguistic, and feudal vested interests. Or of religious alignments, or individual candidates’ influences. The results of the ‘must-vote’ may merely extend or magnify existing patterns. But then again, no one knows for sure what the whole electorate actually prefers.

When every adult votes, the results will eliminate forever the historic and ongoing absurdity of the present firstpast-the-post system. Candidates who often receive a small percentage of the votes cast — leave alone a fraction of the total registered votes — become the winners because they have simply won the highest votes amongst all candidates.

For example, an average National Assembly constituency may have 300,000 registered voters. Say only about 100,000 or one-third come to vote, as often happens. There are, say, six candidates. The top one receives 30,000 votes. The next five get, in descending order, 25,000 and 20,000 and 15,000 and 10,000 and 5,000 votes. Together, the losing five candidates get 75,000 votes i.e. more than double the number polled by the winning candidate. Yet the person getting only 10 per cent of the registered votes and only 30 per cent of the cast votes — minority numbers in both cases — gets to represent the total of 300,000 voters. And the finishing touch is that 75,000 voters have actually voted against the winning candidate who got only 30,000 votes! No wonder most voters and citizens feel entirely disconnected with the candidates who are their official elected representatives.

To ensure a genuinely representative result in each constituency we need an authentic-majority principle. Only that candidate becomes a winner who secures 51 per cent of the registered votes. If no one obtains this result in the first round, a second or third round is held to determine the majority winner.

Compulsory voting will at once make this ideal a practical possibility.

Similarly, the real level of public support for political parties will become crystal clear. Currently, parties which obtain only about one-third of the cast vote, e.g. PPP, PML-Q, PML-N, and about only onesixth of the registered vote acquire the aura of being ‘majority’ and ‘dominant’ parties. Whereas neither has the majority of voters voted for them nor have they secured a majority even of the votes cast.

Mandatory voting will oblige the state and the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) to ensure that all adult voters, especially those residing in remote areas, or in locations where transport is difficult or expensive, have convenient access to polling stations and polling booths. This writer recalls being present as an election observer for the Inter-Parliamentary Union in Namibia in 1989 when mobile voting stations on trucks and buses reached the doorsteps of villagers and residents of small towns who were voting for the first time, and did so with delight.

The most important beneficiaries of compulsory voting will be the women of Pakistan. Many in the rural areas are either not permitted by their men to go out to vote, or certain political parties conspire to prevent them from voting. Or conditions en route even in urban areas between homes and polling stations are not conducive for them. Or they are not even registered, to begin with. Compulsory voting will enfranchise all adult women. And even though it will take time before each woman is able to vote without the influence of husband, father, tribe and clan, a major step towards her empowerment would have been taken.

As about half the expenses by candidates on election campaigns is incurred on polling day — to transport voters, provide food, refreshment etc. — compulsory voting would significantly reduce such costs and related corruptive practices such as underreporting to evade legal limits on expenses. The state and the ECP would assume the cost and responsibility to either bring voters to polling stations or take mobile polling stations to them.

To cope with more than double the turnout of voters, polling could be spread over two to three days.

More than 30 countries around the world have constitutional or legal provisions to facilitate compulsory voting. These range from Australia to Argentina, from Singapore to Greece. At least 12 countries enforce this provision. Voters who wilfully abstain can be penalised by a variety of measures. These include fines (e.g. in Turkey about $10), nonissuance/non-renewal of passports (Brazil), withholding of monthly salary for three months (Bolivia).

A principal argument advanced against compulsory voting is that forcing a person to vote is violative of freedom of choice. But the obligation to be a responsible citizen far outweighs the loss of a ‘negative’ freedom i.e. that of choosing apathy and indifference over engagement and commitment. To address such reluctance, ballot papers could include the option: ‘none of the above’.

During a meeting of a Pildat (Pakistan Institute of Legislative Development and Transparency) electoral reform group with Prime Minister Gilani in March 2010, this writer in his individual capacity suggested the introduction of compulsory voting. The head of government instantly endorsed the idea. He asked officials present to ascertain its feasibility. Now, over 16 months later as new, more accurate electoral rolls are being prepared, it is time to develop a consensus about this measure along with other electoral reforms.

Though the political scene may remain in flux, compulsory voting will build a stable and sustained democracy while strengthening democratic values and practices. ¦

The writer is a former senator and federal minister. javedjabbar.2@gmail.com