Abdul Basit Alvi
The recent elections in Pakistan were conducted within a framework of freedom and fairness. However, it’s disheartening to note the reluctance of our political parties and leaders to gracefully accept defeat. Those on the losing end often resort to unfounded and false accusations of rigging. In the aftermath of elections, such claims of rigging frequently emerge, casting doubt on the credibility of the electoral process and fostering mistrust among the electorate.
Baseless allegations of election rigging undermine public confidence in democratic institutions and diminish trust in the electoral process. When few politicians and political parties make unsubstantiated accusations of rigging, they challenge the fairness and integrity of the entire electoral system, causing their followers to question the legitimacy of elected officials and election outcomes. This erosion of trust can have enduring consequences, weakening the democratic foundation and breeding disillusionment among voters.
Unfounded allegations of election rigging often worsen political polarization and deepen societal divisions. Partisan-driven claims of rigging can exacerbate party divides and hinder efforts to promote dialogue and collaboration across political lines. Furthermore, when voters perceive elections as rigged, they may become more entrenched in their political ideologies and less inclined to compromise, heightening social and political tensions.
Maintaining credible and transparent electoral processes is crucial for upholding the integrity of democratic elections. However, baseless claims of rigging can undermine confidence in these processes and weaken the credibility of electoral institutions. When voters believe elections are manipulated, they may be less motivated to participate in future elections, leading to voter apathy and disengagement from the political sphere. Additionally, unfounded allegations of election rigging can fuel conspiracy theories and spread misinformation, further eroding trust in democratic institutions and undermining the legitimacy of election results.
In today’s era of rampant disinformation and online echo chambers, baseless claims of rigging can quickly proliferate through social media and other channels, causing confusion and distrust among the electorate. Such allegations can also have implications for international confidence and stability. Accusations of rigging can tarnish a country’s reputation on the global stage and undermine faith in its democratic institutions. Moreover, in nations where elections are closely monitored by the international community, baseless claims of rigging can lead to diplomatic tensions and instability. It’s crucial to recognize that the Pakistani Army’s involvement in elections was solely to ensure a safe and secure environment, as requested by the civilian government for such arrangements. Regrettably, in Pakistan, the Army or the establishment is often criticized by the parties that didn’t succeed in the elections. Certain factions have even alleged that the recent Pakistani elections were rigged by the Army to target a specific party.
In an era marked by the rapid dissemination of information across borders and through digital networks, the proliferation of anti-country and anti-army propaganda has become increasingly pervasive. This subtle form of misinformation aims to undermine the reputation, stability, and sovereignty of nations, often through deceptive narratives, provocative language, and targeted disinformation efforts.
Following electoral defeats, defeated parties, along with elements opposed to the state, often engage in propaganda campaigns against the country and its armed forces. Anti-country propaganda employs various tactics to sow discord and foster distrust among populations, both domestically and internationally. These tactics may involve spreading false narratives about the government, culture, or people of a nation, manipulating images or videos to distort perceptions, or amplifying divisive rhetoric to stoke social and political tensions. Additionally, foreign adversaries or hostile actors may exploit existing grievances or conflicts within a country to provoke unrest or destabilize the nation.
Social media platforms have emerged as powerful tools for disseminating anti-country propaganda, enabling malicious actors to reach broad audiences with minimal effort and expense. Fake accounts, bots, and troll farms are commonly utilized to amplify divisive content, manipulate public opinion, and sow confusion. Moreover, the viral nature of social media facilitates the rapid dissemination of false information, making it challenging for users to discern fact from fiction.
Anti-country propaganda often targets vulnerable communities or marginalized groups within a society, exploiting pre-existing social, ethnic, or religious tensions for political or ideological purposes. By exacerbating grievances or stoking fear and resentment, propagandists seek to undermine social cohesion, weakening the fabric of society and fostering conditions conducive to extremism or radicalization.
The spread of anti-country and anti-army propaganda carries significant implications for national security and sovereignty. False information or inflammatory rhetoric may incite violence, civil unrest, or other forms of instability, posing a threat to public safety and order. Furthermore, propaganda campaigns aimed at undermining the legitimacy of a nation’s government or institutions can erode public trust and confidence, impairing the government’s ability to govern effectively and defend against external threats.
Moreover, anti-country propaganda can strain diplomatic relations and exacerbate tensions between nations. Foreign adversaries may employ propaganda to discredit rival governments, justify aggressive actions, or undermine international cooperation. Additionally, the dissemination of false information or provocative rhetoric can exacerbate misunderstandings, escalate conflicts, and impede efforts to foster dialogue and collaboration on global challenges.
Addressing the threat of anti-country and anti-army propaganda requires a concerted effort by government, civil society, and technology companies to promote media literacy, fact-checking, and critical thinking skills among citizens. Additionally, robust regulatory measures and international cooperation are essential to combat the spread of disinformation online and hold malicious actors accountable for their actions. By cultivating a more informed and resilient public, society can better defend against the corrosive effects of anti-country and anti-army propaganda and uphold the values of truth, democracy, and respect for national sovereignty.
In an increasingly interconnected world where information traverses borders effortlessly, the rise of anti-country propaganda has emerged as a formidable influence capable of sowing discord, escalating tensions, and destabilizing both nations and international relations. This deceitful form of misinformation, often propagated by adversarial actors, extremist factions, or foreign adversaries, carries profound ramifications for societies, governance structures, and global harmony.
Anti-country and anti-army propaganda aims to fracture the fundamental fabric of a nation’s identity and solidarity, deliberately seeking to divide communities along ethnic, religious, or ideological lines. Through the dissemination of false narratives, incitement of animosity, and cultivation of mistrust, propagandists undermine the social cohesion that binds societies, fostering internal discord and weakening national resilience against external manipulation and interference. Such campaigns pose a significant threat to democratic principles and governance frameworks by eroding public confidence in elected representatives, democratic processes, and the rule of law. By fostering public unrest, undermining democratic norms, and impeding effective governance, propagandists seek to delegitimize governments and undermine the very foundations of democratic governance.
Anti-country propaganda frequently exploits pre-existing ethnic, religious, or sectarian tensions within societies, exacerbating grievances and inciting intercommunal violence. Through the demonization of minority groups, dissemination of hate speech, and promotion of divisive ideologies, propagandists deepen societal fissures, exacerbating conflicts and directly imperiling peace, stability, and human rights. Furthermore, the escalation of ethnic or religious violence can engender destabilizing repercussions that extend beyond national borders, precipitating regional instability and insecurity.
Certain sectors have begun suggesting that the recent elections indicate a prevailing sentiment against the Pakistan Army, arguing that the majority of voters supported a particular party despite various constraints. They contend that these results signify a populace in favor of said party and in defiance of the establishment. However, these assertions are unsubstantiated and diverge from reality.
To begin with, independent candidates ran as such and should not be conflated with any specific party. Therefore, attributing the votes garnered by independents to a particular party is logically flawed and lacks merit. Even if we were to entertain this argument, the combined votes of all other political parties surpass those of independent candidates, undermining the notion that a majority of the populace opposes the Army or establishment. According to reliable sources the independent candidates got around 17 million votes whereas political parties got more than 43.5 million votes.
Furthermore, I personally know that many independent candidates, even if affiliated with a certain political party, do not hold anti-Army sentiments. This is evidenced by their decision to join other political parties despite their prior affiliation. It is crucial to acknowledge that these were among the most impartial and transparent elections in Pakistan’s history, where individuals were afforded the freedom to vote for their chosen party in a secure environment. This security was ensured by our Army, which maintained neutrality throughout the electoral process. Had there been any bias from the establishment, the election outcomes would have likely differed significantly.
The prevailing narrative, largely propagated by foreign entities and internally endorsed, suggests that the Establishment is out of touch with public sentiment, as evidenced by the outcomes of the February 8th events. This narrative poses significant risks as it aims to achieve two main objectives: first, to portray the leadership of the Establishment as isolated and detached, and second, to create a perception of discord between the Establishment and the general public. However, these supposed implications need to be scrutinized within the framework of reality and context.
Despite a voter turnout of 48%, it’s crucial to note that 52% of eligible voters abstained from participating. Therefore, despite the perception of a surge in support for PTI due to high voter turnout, the actual turnover was lower than that of the 2018 elections. Analysis of the votes cast reveals that, at best, PTI secured 30-35% of the seats in the National Assembly. It’s erroneous to categorize a vote for PTI as inherently anti-Establishment, as many factors influence voters’ choices. Furthermore, even in constituencies won by PTI, a significant portion of voters opposed them. Thus, the sentiment derived from the February 8th results suggests that a majority of voters did not support the anti-Establishment narrative.
Moreover, it’s essential to recognize that the Establishment did not overtly favor any particular party in these elections. The losses experienced by prominent figures from PMLN, IPP, and others indicate a hands-off approach rather than direct interference. The decisive mandate in KPK, despite opportunities for manipulation, underscores a strategy of allowing the electorate to decide freely.
However, the Establishment’s failure lies in underestimating the propaganda launched by PTI before the elections and failing to anticipate it. Lessons should have been learned from the media campaign targeting nomination papers, which saw PTI filing the highest number of nominations. Similarly, the manipulation of Form 45 and the initial dissemination of election results by certain media outlets, influenced by paid sources and foreign entities, should have been foreseen, particularly given the Establishment’s focus on countering fifth-generation warfare. This oversight led to a mistaken belief that impartiality would naturally prevail once the results were announced.
Based on interactions with various stakeholders involved in the electoral process, including officials, politicians, and the public, several observations emerged. On February 8th, the election process commenced smoothly with the Police, Rangers, and Army deployed in the first, second, and third tiers of security. As the polling began, representatives of political parties began sharing results with both the media and their own social media networks. The PTI notably spearheaded this effort, leveraging its adeptness in social media advocacy. Political parties selectively shared results that favored them while concealing others from the media. Media outlets, driven by ratings and a rush to be the first to report, displayed results prematurely. Unfortunately, some overly partisan anchors on 24-hour election broadcasts began making predictions based on as little as 1 to 3% of the results, inflating expectations.
In reality, the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) had not begun compiling ballot box results in Returning Officer (RO) offices until 4 a.m., when, surprisingly, the ECP instructed ROs to announce results within 30 minutes, as reported on PTV News. ECP staff members, in some instances, lacked the necessary competence and training to compile results effectively. Some ROs were observed shuttling between their offices and residences. Under such circumstances, consolidating and confirming results on Form 47s would naturally take time. Claims of victory based solely on Form 45 are deceptive and politically motivated, subject to scrutiny by ECP Tribunals.
The role of the media in fueling despondency and amplifying rumors through speculative analysis on round-the-clock shows was highly detrimental. However, the Army and Rangers ensured the complete security of ballot boxes during transportation and while in the custody of ROs. Despite attempts by charged crowds to breach RO offices in certain areas, the Army and Rangers successfully intervened to prevent mayhem.
Unfortunately, the police proved to be ineffective, highlighting their incompetence in maintaining order without the support of the Army. Instances where the Army intervened to disentangle clashes between political activists were exploited through misleading videos shared on social media. These videos, along with unfounded claims of tampering with Form 47s, exacerbated perceptions of rigging, particularly among fervent supporters of PTI.
It was evident that the ECP was not adequately prepared for such a massive electoral exercise, especially concerning polling station staff. The live transmission of results contributed to false perceptions and enabled biased analysts to manipulate public opinion. It is essential to realistically assess the speed of counting, transportation of ballot boxes to ROs, counting by ROs, and confirmation of results, rather than rushing announcements.
The perception of rigging, fueled by false claims of victory by political party agents, must be addressed. The ECP should counter social media-generated narratives of rigging with factual information during interactions with the media.
Recommendations include reviewing the live transmission of results during electoral exercises and improving communication between the ECP and the media to dispel doubts propagated by social media misinformation campaigns.
False narratives are being spread, suggesting that PTI is poised to secure a two-thirds majority and effortlessly lead the central government, alongside criticisms aimed at the Pakistani Army and its leadership. Additionally, these narratives draw parallels between the recent election outcomes and those of the 1970 elections, followed by the Fall of Dhaka. However, according to FAFEN, PTI-backed independent candidates received approximately 17 million votes, marking a decrease of 800,000 compared to the 2018 elections. Contrary to PTI’s expectations, other parties collectively garnered 40.5 million votes, representing a significant 250% increase over PTI’s vote count. Independents supported by PTI secured 94 seats, a reduction of 24 seats compared to the 2018 elections, while PMN obtained 74 seats, an increase of 9 seats, and PPP secured 54 seats, up by 11 seats from the 2018 results. Overall, PML-N and PPP have expanded their presence in electoral politics, while PTI has experienced a notable decline. Calls for protests risk undermining Pakistan’s national interests, especially amidst the country’s challenging fiscal year ahead. In March, Pakistan faces the task of negotiating with the IMF, and in May, the new government will be tasked with announcing a stringent budget with minimal public subsidies. Given this context, PTI’s response should reflect maturity.
Readers, it is imperative for all political parties and leaders to acknowledge these facts. It is time to move beyond controversies, accept the election results and realities, and collaborate for the betterment of the nation. The state’s interests should take precedence over political agendas, and all actions and statements must be carefully considered to align with the broader interests of the country.