I got censored by Dawn newspaper

[kidwaibhai]

I might be the crazy optimist here but i think the democracy is a evolutionary. these things are going to happen in the beginning but as our election commission gets stronger which i think it will because the judiciary has become independent.

 

[Spring Onion]

I believe 'Dawn' is not alone in this; I have experienced similar things while posting comments on BBC and CNN websites. All of them have their fixed agendas and usually wont entertain too much deviation from that.

Dear they are suppose to have an agenda that too against Muslim countries. But a Pakistani media outlet having an agenda suplimenting the agenda of the likes of Fox, CNN, Newyork Times and supporting your enemy then it does surprise you.

 

[niaz]

Because voting in Pakistan is based on the personality cult rather than the issues; a well-known and popular heavyweight such as Javed Hashmi or Nawaz Sharif can contest as many seats as he likes in the general election. All but one of the seats have to be vacated soon after the first session of Parliament.

It is far easier to manipulate/influence results in a bye election; these would later be handed out to party stalwarts who would have otherwise lost had they contested on their own. The system however equally benefits all the parties. For example, Imran Khan contested from 6 seats in 2002 elections hoping to capitalize on his cricket prowess. However he managed to win only one seat from Mianwali.

Is this system fair? Obviously not but unless majority of the parties object this will remain in place.

For the record, per Section 33 (7) of R. P. Act, 1951, a person can contest from two constituencies for a Lok Sabha election in India.

 

[TaimiKhan]

Dear Mastan

Here in India, some time back it was the norm that politician used to represent
multiple constituencies. But lately Election Commission has made it mandatory for every one to represent at one constituency. One can run for an election at multiple places, but after the results are declared, one has to choose ONLY ONE constituency to represent, and resign/leave the other seats, if he/she is elected at more than one place. A re-election is done on left constituencies.

This is very logical and now politicians take great care in chosing thier constituency. This make the election process more competitive, fair and democratic in practice.

As you pointed out, I fully agree on this point. Here Indian EC has done a commendable job indeed. Pakistan's Election Commission must follow a simmilar approach. My advice is to forward your concerns to the EC in Pakistan. Hope some sane mentality prevail there.

Fighter

We have been following the same system for many elections now, rather since i have been hearing about elections in Pakistan since 80s, this thing happens. Can contest from multiple constituencies but once selected, has to leave other seats which he/she may have won also, and then reelection is done on the vacated seats.

But i believe, this practice should also be discontinued, as its a wastage of time and money & resources as multiple elections are done on the same seat. Either not allow the candidate to run from multiple constituencies or if allowed, then where the seat gets vacated, the runner up should get the emptied seat. Doing reelection does no justice.

 

[Uzair Zahir]

Its highly condem the dis justic hovered upon you buddy !

 

[Fighter488]

We have been following the same system for many elections now, rather since i have been hearing about elections in Pakistan since 80s, this thing happens. Can contest from multiple constituencies but once selected, has to leave other seats which he/she may have won also, and then reelection is done on the vacated seats.

But i believe, this practice should also be discontinued, as its a wastage of time and money & resources as multiple elections are done on the same seat. Either not allow the candidate to run from multiple constituencies or if allowed, then where the seat gets vacated, the runner up should get the emptied seat. Doing reelection does no justice.

Runner should be given the seat. Hmm.. Let us discuss it.
A person is selected because he / she is voted by majority of the people in that constituency. In democracy, majority role is given priority. This is how system works. If the elected person vacates the seat, it does not mean that the OPINION OF THE MAJORITY OF THAT CONSTITUENCY go to dustbin. A runner-up is ACTUALLY is a representative of minority of opinions in his favour. It is as good as, say, punishing the majority of that constituency because thier elected candidate is not available, due to fact he has choosen to represent some other constituency. This is in direct conflict with the democratic setup!

There may be different solutions to it.

1. The parties must declare the list of thier nominated candidates before the election, for the voters. Voters then would not vote for the candidate of the party, but for the party and its manifesto. Individual candidates can still stand for the elections without the backing of some party. These are truely independent candidates. But such independent candidate can stand from one constituency only, at a time. The voting should be done in percentage of votes for a particular party/individual, in a constituency. If the party gets the majority vote then the party should be free to nominate any person from the declared nominated list only. If the independent person wins then he/she is declared winner. This solution look more of a CORRECTION ATTEMPT to already screwed system of election. But is a possible solution.

2. The over-all election and democratic process is revamped.
A. Politicians must pass through a certain criteria, before they are declared eligible to stand for an elction. This criteria may take a number of issues in to consideration, e.g. education, experience, social activities, understanding of national and international issues, competency and expertise in certain fields, etc.

B. The campaign procedure and expenditure must be controlled by government for EVERY INDIVIDUAL AND PARTY in every constituency. Nobody should be allowed to spend more than a certain pre-allocated budget, strictly approved by government. This budget must be equal for all candidates and parties, for a certain constituency. This will ensure an equal oppurtunity contest for all participents.

Simmilar steps are taken to further strengthen the setup of free, fair, equal oppurtunity election of a TRUELY ELIGIBLE candidate.

Just my 2 cents.

Fighter

 

[qsaark]

Qsaark,

I told you one time---don't ride piggy back on my post---if you have substance---then post your own thoughts. Conquer your own mountains.

Niether is Sh Rashid anyone near to me nor is Javed Hashmi---their names were used as an example.

You are taking this discussion a little too personal and making it too personal.

Have you developed any problems about discussing any issues on this board---people should stop talking if they don't like something.

Bringing in Musharraf was extremely pitiful and in poor tatste on your part Q.

There is plenty of substance in my post but like before, instead of reply to the concerns I raised, you are trying to bully me and this is a solid proof of the substance of my post. Even Webby or Asim do not demand people not to 'piggy back' on their posts, who are you? Ameer ul Momineen, Razi Allah, Musharraf, what? Why no one should post a rebuttal of your pearls of wisdom? Unfortunate for you, I am not among those members who get scared by bullies; reply to the points I raised. There is nothing personal, but things have to be taken into correct perspective and than discussed accordingly. Your wish is one thing, but the situation of Pakistan and the facts on the ground are another. Bringing Musharraf was needed because you insulted the Pakistani people and questioned their intellect, and while your 'idol' was the King of the country for eight long years, he did nothing that would show his intellect.

Again, I invite you to post a rebuttal of my points instead of sneakingly ranking my post lowly, and bullying me.

 

[MastanKhan]

Hi,

Democracy is an evolutionary process---understandable---but that is when there is no precedence set in front of us. We have ample examples in the democratic world of how to setup the system.

Even in the u s, the elections are held on a party basis---but it is the candidate who is equally important as well. He or she can only and only fight from one place----that is the place of his or her declared primary residence.

It brings out a sense of ownership to the elected member, it makes them and the party, accountable for what they have done and it becomes either a matter of pride for their successes or a resultant shame for their failures. Most of them have lived and grown in the communities that they have seeked their elections or have changed residences in case of Hillary Clinton.

In either case, they are on their own turf.

Now talking about Imran Khan---in real life could he have been bowling in six different matches at one time----absolutely not----then why is he allowed to do thast in real life.

If any participant cannot win from his primary declared residence, them he or she may change places and wait for the next term.

This is the primary fundamentals and the basics of democracy---this is absolutely the first baby step----the very first foundation stone.

You do that in the election and more than half of the issues are gone.

This multiple seat running election is a very SPITEFUL election and there is no such thing represented as a democracy in this race. Any populous party can target an opponent and place a strong candidate of their chosing just so that they can defeat the opponent.

If you cannot do this in real time war with your enemy then how can you do this otherwise. The memberes running for those seats must have the fear of loss and must have it in their heart to perform to the best of their abilities---because that is the only and only chance that they will get.

Talk to yourself and ask this---under what circumstances you are performing at your best---where do you maximize your abilities---where you have the only chance or where you may get ten chances.