Pakistan: More controversy: CECs resignation

A PRESIDENT has been elected, but the fallout from the controversial electoral process continues. The chief election commissioner, Fakhruddin Ebrahim, has resigned and, while he has not said so directly, it has been reported that Mr Ebrahim was unhappy with the Supreme Court amending the presidential election schedule and the lack of support he received from the other ECP members. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court has summoned the PTI chief Imran Khan today to explain why he should not face contempt charges for comments critical of the judiciary made in the run-up to the presidential election. All in all, it is an extraordinary surge of controversy after the event — and has the potential to tarnish the reputations and democratic credentials of all involved. Mr Ebrahim’s resignation in particular seems driven more by frustration and emotion than calm rationalisation. As the CEC who presided over an election that is largely seen as credible and acceptable but not entirely free and fair, Mr Ebrahim was uniquely positioned to push the project of electoral transparency forward, especially since he was only a year into the job. From electoral rolls to vetting of candidates’ papers to enforcing campaign rules to ensuring a transparent polling-day process and much, much more, there is a lot that remains to be done. Mr Ebrahim may have chafed under the constraints of his office — previous CECs, before the last parliament’s constitutional amendments, wielded much power, whereas now the CEC has just one of the five votes in the ECP — but to give up so early into his job, even if a general and a presidential election are now under his belt, surely does not send the right signal. Yet, when seemingly clear-cut constitutional prerogatives are taken over by another institution, resignation may be the only honourable thing to do. But rather than try and wade out of controversy, the court has waded deeper in with the summons to Imran Khan. The PTI supremo’s words were uttered in public and made a clear distinction between undermining the integrity of the judicial pillar of the state and criticising specific actions or judgements handed down by the judiciary in recent electoral matters. The right to criticise a judicial pronouncement is very much a part of the democratic order. In fact, it is also part of the judicial order of things: after all, the recently forgotten practice here of dissenting opinions by judges has through near-universal legal history helped developed the law as it stands today. Too many battles and too much controversy is unhealthy for any institution.