The secrecy question

The issue of whether Senate polls should be held as an open ballot or a secret one is continuing, with the opposition and the PTI government still divided. While an open ballot makes sense in many ways, there are also suggestions that it is a violation of democratic rights and the right to not inform the public as to who a person votes for. Whether this applies to the Senate and to persons who are already members of a party and elected to assemblies on its ticket is a much more controversial question.

The PTI government has however, after stating several times that it would seek an open vote in the Senate, now moved for an ordinance which would allow this to happen. The ruling party had initially attempted to get a bill passed through the assembly, but was stopped by the opposition which refused to endorse the bill on the grounds that such changes were not acceptable to it. The problem is that, as we saw in the case of Sadiq Sanjrani, the present chairman of the Senate, many things can change unexpectedly in Pakistani politics. In that case, while the opposition had the majority, it was the PTI candidate who carried the day and collected votes, cast in secrecy, through one means or the other. Most of us know what these means are. The question of whether an open ballot would prevent corruption is questionable. But it is possible that it may be more awkward or more embarrassing for a sitting MNA or MPA to vote against the stance and decision of his or her party.

For the moment, the PTI has said that given the lack of agreement by the opposition, it will pass an ordinance which allows a secret ballot in the Senate. This again brings us back to the politics of ordinances. One of the main foundations of democracy is to allow matters to be conducted through an open debate among the representatives of the people. An ordinance prevents this and simply allows the government to go ahead with whatever move it sees fit. An ordinance in an important matter, such as voting for the Senate, would be rather unfortunate. However, it seems likely that this is what will happen. What is even more important than the question of how the vote is held for the Senate this time round is the issue of making our political system or the behaviour of our politicians a little more ethical and predictable. The many stories we have heard over the past of the exchange of money or of bribery through other means is extremely unfortunate. This has to be amended. In other countries we have had situations where persons have been elected to parliament through a single ballot and a prime minister selected in this manner. The UK is an example. It will not be possible to achieve this goal immediately. But rather than merely depending on ordinances to ensure open ballots, it is towards this goal that we should attempt to move.