GlobalVillageSpace
Media Partner
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2017
- Messages
- 993
- Reaction score
- 1
- Country
- Location
The move political parties don’t want you to know about
Global Village Space |
GVS Analysis |
On Wednesday, sub-committee of the Parliamentary Panel on Electoral Reforms approved an extension in maximum term limit from 4 years to 6 years. This move has further put to risk the already fragile structure of democracy in Pakistan.
Minister of Law and Justice Zahid Hamid headed the meeting of the sub-committee and said in regards to this decision “All the political parties demanded that there should be six year time period instead of four years for holding intra-party elections”
“Earlier the parties were bound to hold intra-party elections once in every four years… there has been a feeling that this time period was very short,” he stated, explaining the subcommittee’s reasoning.
Law Minister Zaid Hamid’s statements have made it apparent that the decision to extend the time period between mandatory intra-party elections was taken on the basis of popular demand.
This decision has been taken with reference to the Political Parties Order 2002, Section 11(1) of which states “The party leader and other office-bearers of every political party … shall be elected periodically in accordance with party’s constitution through secret ballot based on a democratic and transparent system: Provided that a period, not exceeding four years, shall intervene between any two elections.”
This law is proposed to be amended according to the committee’s decision of a 2-year extension between mandatory intra-party elections.
Read More: PTI rendered “bat less” by ECP; Will it now oblige system…
In addition to this, the committee has also approved an increase from 12.5 to 25 percent on the minimum requirement of total votes to avoid confiscation of nomination fees. Previously, if a candidate failed to secure 12.5 percent of all votes polled he/she would lose the fee deposited at the time of nomination. Now the percentage of votes required to claim the security deposit has been increased to 25.
These measures will be incorporated in the proposed Election Act 2017 which is expected to be finalized next week.
Law Minister Zaid Hamid’s statements have made it apparent that the decision to extend the time period between mandatory intra-party elections was taken on the basis of popular demand. Larger questions of democratic norms and fairness seem not to have been taken into consideration.
Background of intra-party elections in Pakistan
Historically, political parties of Pakistan have not operated like fair democratic institutions rather, their organizational structure resembles closely to that of a private limited company.
However, intra-party elections in Pakistan are a peculiar phenomenon. Mainstream parties PML-N and PPP treat intra-party elections as a mere formality.
Political parties have traditionally been propped up on the basis of a personality cult and controlled by a powerful family. Hierarchy is not established through a diplomatic process, instead, the big fish cherry picks individuals on the basis of loyalty, tribal background, and financial resources.
Read full article:
The move political parties don’t want you to know about
Global Village Space |
GVS Analysis |
On Wednesday, sub-committee of the Parliamentary Panel on Electoral Reforms approved an extension in maximum term limit from 4 years to 6 years. This move has further put to risk the already fragile structure of democracy in Pakistan.
Minister of Law and Justice Zahid Hamid headed the meeting of the sub-committee and said in regards to this decision “All the political parties demanded that there should be six year time period instead of four years for holding intra-party elections”
“Earlier the parties were bound to hold intra-party elections once in every four years… there has been a feeling that this time period was very short,” he stated, explaining the subcommittee’s reasoning.
Law Minister Zaid Hamid’s statements have made it apparent that the decision to extend the time period between mandatory intra-party elections was taken on the basis of popular demand.
This decision has been taken with reference to the Political Parties Order 2002, Section 11(1) of which states “The party leader and other office-bearers of every political party … shall be elected periodically in accordance with party’s constitution through secret ballot based on a democratic and transparent system: Provided that a period, not exceeding four years, shall intervene between any two elections.”
This law is proposed to be amended according to the committee’s decision of a 2-year extension between mandatory intra-party elections.
Read More: PTI rendered “bat less” by ECP; Will it now oblige system…
In addition to this, the committee has also approved an increase from 12.5 to 25 percent on the minimum requirement of total votes to avoid confiscation of nomination fees. Previously, if a candidate failed to secure 12.5 percent of all votes polled he/she would lose the fee deposited at the time of nomination. Now the percentage of votes required to claim the security deposit has been increased to 25.
These measures will be incorporated in the proposed Election Act 2017 which is expected to be finalized next week.
Law Minister Zaid Hamid’s statements have made it apparent that the decision to extend the time period between mandatory intra-party elections was taken on the basis of popular demand. Larger questions of democratic norms and fairness seem not to have been taken into consideration.
Background of intra-party elections in Pakistan
Historically, political parties of Pakistan have not operated like fair democratic institutions rather, their organizational structure resembles closely to that of a private limited company.
However, intra-party elections in Pakistan are a peculiar phenomenon. Mainstream parties PML-N and PPP treat intra-party elections as a mere formality.
Political parties have traditionally been propped up on the basis of a personality cult and controlled by a powerful family. Hierarchy is not established through a diplomatic process, instead, the big fish cherry picks individuals on the basis of loyalty, tribal background, and financial resources.
Read full article:
The move political parties don’t want you to know about
