Democracy is the loser in Pakistan’s Senate election

Pakistan has just held its latest round of three-yearly elections for half of the 104-seat Senate, the upper house of parliament. The unusually acrimonious contest threw up strange political bedfellows in an alliance to deny the ruling Pakistan Muslim League-N of former prime minister Nawaz Sharif the leadership of the Senate despite emerging as its largest party. 

Most parties — both on the winning and losing alliances — cried foul and admitted that their own legislators in the four provincial assemblies, which form the electoral college for the Senate, sold their votes to opposition candidates for astronomical sums of money, up to Rs40 million per vote, aimed at defeating PML-N by any means. So serious is the unrest over the role of money in influencing the outcome of Senate elections that all key contesting parties have called for an investigation. The Election Commission of Pakistan has invited the parties to cooperate with it in exposing horse trading and “vote cheaters” in their ranks, and has enlisted the support of intelligence agencies in the investigation. 

The aftermath of the polls continues to stir up violent emotions in national politics ahead of elections for the National Assembly and provincial elections in the summer. Demands and voices of most stakeholders, including civil society, the media, the judiciary, the Election Commission of Pakistan, national and provincial governments and voters, are growing for urgent reforms to address the increasing trust deficit in politics and parliament.  

What does this controversy and its aftermath portend? Pakistan is a multi-national, multi-linguist, multi-ethnic and multi-faith state. For political stability, all these political pluralisms are supposed to be reflected in the national parliament, which is bicameral. The lower house, the National Assembly, is basically elected directly with a quota of reserved seats for women and religious minorities, while the upper house, the Senate, is elected by the National Assembly and four provincial assemblies. 

The general sense of citizens being cheated in the March elections by dozens of the over 1,000 legislators of the national and provincial assemblies is a reflection of loss of faith in the primary function of the Senate: a counterbalance to the tyranny of the electoral majority. Pakistan has four provinces and two special territories, the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (Fata) and federal capital, Islamabad. Most of the 342 members of the National Assembly represent Punjab province alone, which sends more representatives to the house than those of the other three provinces and Fata and Islamabad put together. The Senate counterbalances this by sending an equal number of senators from each province (23), and eight from Fata and four from Islamabad.

This representation formula aims at strengthening the federation and deterring the potential hegemony of any of the geographical units of the country. The controversial outcome of the March election where a first-time independent senator, Sadiq Sanjrani, was voted by Pakistan People’s Party of Bilawal Bhutto and Pakistan Tehrik-e-Insaf of Imran Khan, among others, was astonishing as neither fielded their own candidate for the prize post. The ruling party, PML-N, candidate Zafarul Haq mysteriously lost despite having the numbers to make it to the finishing line. In effect the results have ensured that the Senate chairman — the number two in the Pakistani state’s political hierarchy after the president — will not enjoy bipartisan support in the highest legislature in the country. 

This is unlike the previous three Senate terms and chairmen — Raza Rabbani, Nayyar Bokhari and Farooq Naek — who were all elected virtually unanimously, allowing the Senate to play its role of a federal healer in a polarized polity. Indeed, they helped overhaul Pakistan’s constitution by making it more federal and democratic through more than 100 amendments. Now the non-political Sanjrani’s contentious election will undermine the national political and legislative agenda because he will not enjoy bipartisan support. This can only help relegate political agendas to the periphery in deference to the centrality of the security establishment’s priorities for greater national influence at a time when the upcoming summer national elections will chart Pakistan’s political future. 

While the electoral trinity of Sharif’s PML-N, Bhutto’s PPP and Khan’s PTI are within their remit to contest or collaborate with each other, the Senate alliance of left-of-centre PPP with right-of-centre PTI has altered the political landscape of Pakistan’s Left and Right into a near-pervasive conservative bent. This can only result in cutting into the state’s ability to counter growing religious extremism and run counter to international expectations from Pakistan to be progressive and democratic in a region awash with religious extremism. This slide in democratic credentials means a greater likelihood of Pakistan abandoning the exploration of a more inclusive, tolerant and pluralistic federation in the pursuit of greater national and regional political stability. This is a troubling position to be in. 

— Adnan Rehmat is a journalist, researcher and analyst in Pakistan with interests in politics, media, development and science.

Twitter: @adnanrehmat1