Ali Ahmed Dhilun
On June 25, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a resolution supporting democracy in Pakistan. This resolution called for a transparent investigation of the February 8 elections and demanded a full and independent investigation into any alleged irregularities or interference in the 2024 general elections. Besides supporting democracy, it emphasized protecting human rights, freedom of expression, and ensuring public participation in the democratic process. The resolution was supported by 368 members of the House, with seven opposing it, and it was named “Resolution 901”.
Before moving forward, it is important to note that the U.S. Congress refers to the federal legislature of the United States, comprising two houses: the House of Representatives and the Senate. Both houses are filled through direct elections. They make federal laws, declare war, approve treaties, and have the power of impeachment. The House of Representatives has 435 members, each representing a different district for a two-year term. The number of seats each state receives is based on its population, which is determined every ten years. Each state is guaranteed at least one representative: seven states have one representative each, California has the most with 53 representatives, reflecting its population of 40 million, the highest of any state. Each state has two senators elected for six-year terms at the state level, with one-third of the Senate elections held every other year. Our system aligns with the U.S. system in terms of the Senate.
Regarding the resolution, it refers to a decision approved by voting from a particular group or organization. Although the U.S. House of Representatives passes resolutions almost every other day, resolutions against Pakistan are rare and usually aim to increase pressure rather than take action against Pakistan. This demand has also come from the European Union and the United Kingdom, and Pakistani institutions like FAFEN and PILDAT, as well as the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan, have called for investigations into irregularities in the February 8 elections. It cannot be overlooked that after a long period, the European Union’s election observer group did not monitor the February 8 elections, causing global observers to view the 2024 elections with suspicion.
You can argue that Imran Khan was himself a victim of an American conspiracy during his tenure, as he claimed that the U.S. played a role in toppling his government. Or you might say that after Joe Biden won the election, he did not call Imran Khan but called neighboring India instead. No matter how much you disagree with U.S. policies, you cannot deny the importance of the resolution passed by the U.S. House of Representatives regarding Pakistan’s elections. Even if you argue that PTI’s lobbying in the U.S. or the efforts of the Pakistani-American community facilitated the resolution, it is difficult to sway all 435 members of the House. Securing the support of 90% of the members indicates a significant problem, and it was done openly.
Why do such issues arise? Why do we create opportunities for public embarrassment? The same outcry happened in 2018, 2013, and the 1997 elections. The issues go back to the 1964 elections when Fatima Jinnah was defeated and labeled a traitor. This open rigging continued, with anyone expressing dissent being branded a traitor. I believe no one in Pakistan, from Wali Khan to Nawaz Sharif, Benazir, Shahbaz Sharif, and Maulana Fazlur Rehman, is a traitor. A resolution should be passed in the National Assembly to abolish the term ‘traitor’. Otherwise, tomorrow, I might be labeled a traitor based on a column I write. Especially for politicians and dissenters, this term should be prohibited.
Back to the U.S. resolution, it is clear that our rulers have not received a clean chit from the world regarding the February 8 elections. I read a report stating that in 2023-24, among all countries holding elections, Pakistan faced the most allegations of rigging. Why does this happen? And when will we move past it? Elections in India and Bangladesh did not face such severe allegations. Accusations arise where there is misconduct. Therefore, a transparent investigation into the February 8 elections will clarify the situation. Otherwise, even India might pass a resolution against us, claiming election irregularities in the neighboring country, leading to a lack of credible leadership and creating problems for neighboring states.
Moreover, I believe the head of the Election Commission should be a judge from the Supreme Court of Pakistan. Often, a bureaucrat is appointed as the head of the Election Commission, who neither has any connection with the public nor any empathy for them, leading to elections marred by controversy for years. Therefore, in addition to the 17 judges in the Supreme Court, a couple more should be appointed to oversee these matters. Otherwise, no institution in the country will remain trustworthy.
Although the resolution seemingly uses democracy and human rights in Pakistan and calls for an investigation into the elections, there are serious questions regarding Pakistan’s elections. PTI is also demanding an investigation, and their complaints about election rigging are legitimate. Many PTI supporters in the U.S. have been active, effectively lobbying against the government in Congress and the Senate, creating embarrassment for the current government and influential forces. While many attribute the 368 votes in favor of the resolution to PTI’s successful lobbying in the U.S., I believe it goes beyond PTI’s efforts. The political climate might be changing, which is why PTI leadership has linked negotiations to the release of their leaders.
After the resolution was passed by the U.S. House of Representatives, Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif attended the National Assembly session, greeted opposition leaders, and invited PTI for negotiations. However, many perceived this as a result of pressure from the U.S. House resolution. As a journalist, I cannot assert this, but I cannot dismiss it either. Hence, as the poet said:
“Reflect on your own actions a little, If we voice our concerns, there will be complaints.”
