By: Musawir Qureshi
The politics of the country has heated up once again following the unofficial results of the recent Gilgit-Baltistan elections. According to the initial results, the Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) has emerged as the largest political party with 10 seats, followed by the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) winning 4 seats, while 7 independent candidates have also been successful, and the Majlis Wahdat-e-Muslimeen (MWM) has won 1 seat.
Immediately after the announcement of the election results, various political parties expressed their reactions. The Chief Minister of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Sohail Afridi, met with Maulana Fazal-ur-Rehman at the Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam’s Mufti Mehmood Centre in Peshawar. He rejected the election results of Gilgit-Baltistan, alleging that rigging had taken place in the elections. Both leaders also discussed provincial rights, the law and order situation, and the circumstances arising after the FATA merger. The Chief Minister’s stance was that certain problems have escalated after the FATA merger and the law and order situation has also deteriorated. He claimed that the Federation is committing injustices against the province and is denying its rights, thus JUI should support the provincial government.
On the other hand, Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif and President of the State Asif Ali Zardari also held a meeting, discussing the political situation of the country and the Gilgit-Baltistan elections. Government circles view these results as a manifestation of the public’s trust.
However, the leader of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), Barrister Gohar, rejected the election results and alleged that their party had a clear lead in many constituencies but the results were altered. According to him, they possess the Form 47s of certain constituencies, which contain evidence of the alleged rigging.
If we look at the political history of Pakistan, this is nothing new. Almost after every election, similar allegations are leveled, where the winners claim that the public trusts them, and the losing faction alleges the alteration of results and the theft of the mandate. In future elections, these roles often reverse; yesterday’s winner becomes today’s loser, and yesterday’s objector defends the results today.
This attitude is not confined to just one party or group, but almost all major political parties of Pakistan have been part of such behavior at one time or another. The unfortunate part is that the losing factions do not accept the election results from the heart, and the tradition of congratulating political opponents on their victory has not been established yet; instead, it remains a matter of stubborn denial (“main na maano”). Democracy is not merely the name of casting votes, but it is also the name of accepting results, strengthening institutions, and increasing political tolerance.
A bitter aspect of Pakistan’s political history is that the hopes of the public have been shattered repeatedly. In every election, the public is shown dreams of progress, employment, justice, education, health, and prosperity, but after coming to power, most political leaders change their priorities. The problems of the masses remain as they are, while political feuds, blame games, and the battle for power continue. Although it is not that all Pakistani politicians are the same, collectively a strong impression has developed among the public that politics has become a means of fulfilling personal interests rather than serving the people. Poverty, inflation, unemployment, and the lack of basic amenities still affect the lives of millions of Pakistanis today. The public repeatedly trusts new faces and new slogans, but the results are often not in line with their expectations.
The real need is for political parties to adopt a joint framework to make the electoral process transparent. If any party has reservations about the results, it should adopt a legal and constitutional path. In such situations, winning parties also need to understand that real success lies not merely in acquiring power, but in solving the problems of the public.
The Gilgit-Baltistan elections have once again brought Pakistan’s political reality to the forefront. Some political analysts and politicians also allege that the establishment played its role in Gilgit-Baltistan just like in the general elections of Pakistan. How much truth lies in this is also a question—whether this is a fact or just an allegation? If it is true, it is not a good sign for the country and especially for democracy, and if it is an allegation, then allegations are leveled by enemies, not one’s own. Now the question is not merely about who lost and who won, but the real question is whether any positive change will come into the lives of the public. Will political leaders spend their energies on serving the people, or will this chain of allegations and political warfare continue like this?
The public of Pakistan now wants practical results rather than just promises. They need a leadership that rises above personal interests to safeguard national interests, respects freedom of opinion, and considers power as a means of service. Until the welfare of the public becomes the central axis of politics, the celebrations of winners and protests of losers will continue like this after elections, but the betterment of the common man’s conditions will remain merely a dream.
