t finally seems like the general elections will be held in November. The ruling coalition has hinted that the National Assembly might be dissolved a few days before the expiry of its mandated term. Such a decision will allow the Election Commission to schedule the elections in up to 90 days of the dissolution, as opposed to the 60-day period if the National Assembly were to complete its five-year term. There is irony in the politicking surrounding the election date: since last year, it has been done while keeping an eye on potential changes in the leadership of institutions outside the political arena rather than public approval or disapproval of the political parties involved. Such an approach towards elections indicates the lesser importance that some political leaders attach to elections in our largely procedural democracy. Such relegation of elections – as the primary means of measuring popular appeal and the formation of the government – among the elite understandably translates to a distrust in the process among the masses.

In Pakistan, there has always been a level of public cynicism towards democracy, in general, and about elections, in particular. The voter turnout has hovered consistently around 40 percent – occasionally going marginally over 50 percent. More importantly, the view that popular support at the polls does not matter with regards to the outcome of the elections is shared even by some who actually cast their ballots. Such perceptions regarding elections and democracy are partly rooted in the public’s frustration with elected governments’ inability to deliver basic services. Cynicism regarding the elections also results from the common perception that elections merely proceduralise patronage and dynasticism.

Elections lose their popular appeal further because of the somewhat exaggerated perceptions regarding widespread rigging in elections, and due to the fact, that once elected, no government completes its term. There is no denying that the elections have been influenced, and their results managed, by those wielding oversized influence. However, in the interest of fairness, one should also note that the perception that election results solely reflect the whims and strategies of the powerful is also uncorroborated by historical evidence. Two examples that come to mind are Benazir Bhutto’s ascent to the premiership despite the establishment’s obvious backing of the IJI in the 1988 elections, and the PML-Q’s failure to win an outright majority despite Gen Musharraf’s backing in 2002.

The view that popular support in the polls does not matter with regard to the outcome of the elections is prevalent even among those who actually cast ballots.

Political developments since the vote of no confidence against the Imran Khan-led PTI government have deepened suspicions regarding elections among a portion of the populace. This section of population views legal action against the leadership of PTI as attempts at political marginalisation. The legality and the political wisdom of the action against PTI is a matter for debate. However, what doubtlessly remains an imminent issue is the perils of disengaging, even disenfranchising, a section of the population that had become more politically engaged in the recent years. You can disagree with people’s political choices, but the whole essence of democracy is for those people to have that choice available to them.

It appears that the PTI will go into the next elections significantly handicapped. The party is falling apart – factions appearing, loyalties changing and a number of important leaders in hiding. The state of things, as they stand, does make it easy to foresee that the PTI would significantly underperform. Various trends suggest that Imran Khan appears to have retained much of his prior support; though with the defection of notable electables, the withdrawal of loyalists from the political scene, and the deprivation of finances, it is not difficult to see that the party will fail to achieve what it might have in the absence of these factors.

Realistically, even dishonestly run elections assume their legitimacy. The referendums that have been held in Pakistan, which are never recalled without some comic value, also led to the de facto and de jure recognition of the results. If politics is governed exclusively by short-term coldblooded pragmatism, ostracising the PTI, or even disallowing it to participate in the elections, is sound political policy. As it has happened on previous occasions, any government formed as a result of the coming elections will acquire legitimacy over time. The government will create its own system of patronage and the spoils of that victory will have little shortage of claimants among the politicians and among the masses.

Such expedient approach to politics, however, will blind us to the opportunities presented by our current critical juncture. We will remain consistent to our political culture that tolerates the banishment of political opponents by any means. The political elite across the spectrum have been a victim of this political culture; they have benefitted from it too. By succumbing to the lure of this short-termism, the political elite will perpetuate the cycle.

The other issue with this approach is that it will potentially disillusion people who have shown enthusiasm for political participation. Since the end of the Musharraf era, Pakistan has made a decisive switch towards popular consent for democracy. Meddling with the elections, directly or indirectly, will create disillusionment among a significant portion of the electorate, which ignites romance for all forms of authoritarianisms.

The writer is an assistant professor of political science at the University of Peshawar. He can be reached at aameraza@gmail.com