PAKISTAN`S election system has consistently failed to shape a government that enjoys public and political legitimacy, leaving the democratic process gasping for air. Structural and systemic weaknesses have enabled detractors to question election outcomes that may be legitimate and earnestly won. Such an arrangement has served an `omnipresent` state, which has preferred working with governments having `questionable` or `fragmented` mandates, rather than the one that is clear.

The reason is simple: a strong government with a decisive mandate may resist bureaucratic demands and challenge well-entrenched power structures unlike weaker governments, which are more pliable. The current system suits political parties, which are largely organised on social and ethnic divisions and hesitant to democratise internally.

Hence, a revolving elite consensus is formed: one elite group replaces another whenever resistance to bureaucratic control arises. This cycle has persisted since the `restoration` of democracy in 1988.

Regardless of its veracity, the admission of the currently imprisoned former prime minister that his government was controlled by the then army chief was telling. The situation might have arisen because the PTI formed its government in 2018 after a crude display of state might to oust its predecessors, clouding its win. The PML-N government formed after the 2024 general elections has faced similar questions about its legitimacy, reinforcing the need to have a deeper look at the inability of the election system to generate an untainted outcome.

Earlier attempts at poll reforms, such as the new election act enacted in 2017 and a set of amendments in 2023, largely addressed operationallevel issues but did not address questions about structural and systemic flaws. The questions are few but complex and need an urgent parliamentary response before the next election cycle.

Why do we cling to the obsolete `first past the post` system, which neither yields a representative government nor ensures the inclusion of diverse voices and voters? The FPTP may work in countries with a few major political contestants but fails in a country like ours where 112 political parties fielded candidates for one or more assembly seats in the 2024 polls. The FPTP system fragments votes and weakens representation one who gets 100 votes wins, and the one with 99 votes loses, keeping 99 voters unrepresented, without avoice in the assembly. If the parliamentary reserved seats can be allocated on the basis of proportionality, why can`t elections for assembly seats be held on the same basis? Why can`t we have direct elections to the Senate to enable a people-elected Upper House? Let people decide who will represent them in the Senate in a transparent manner, instead of keeping the existing indirect eleetion mechanism where members of the national and provincial assemblies form the electoral college for the Senate election, returning many candidates even on general seats without any background and experience of politicalwork.

Why can`t we have constituencies with equal population? It does not make sense that 155,682 voters in Karachi`s NA-244 elect one representative when 810,723 voters have the same sanctionin Hafizabad`s NA-67, meaning almost five votes in this constituency equal one vote in NA-244. A more independent delimitation commission deserves consideration, while the Election Commission of Pakistan should be empowered to ensure that the principles of equal suffrage are met in future delimitations, as against the current model where theECPdoesit all-constitutes delimitationcommittees, hears objections to the decisions of these committees, makes decisions unappealable in any court of law and publishes final delimitations.

Why can`t we have separate, dedicated courts to deal with poll matters including post-election disputes to enable a prompt resolution? More than half the election petitions still await resolution in ad hoc-style poll tribunals when each petition should have been decided within six months of its filing as per the law. But no one dare question the high court lordships who chair these tribunals, not even the ECP.Why can`t we make political parties central in all electoral matters instead of them just issuing tickets to their candidates? Under the current law, political parties cannot even file an election petition in election tribunals or challenge a decision of a poll official for rejecting their candidate during the nomination process. The power of certification of a `good candidate` should be taken away from a Grade-18 officer and given to political parties, which should ascertain that the candidates they are fielding are socially, politically and financially election-worthy, notwithstanding the ECP`s review.

Why can`t we have a more stringent legal framework to control political and campaign finance, which is virtually holding the election system hostage to the whims of the mighty and moneyed? More focused reforms are needed to block black money being used to fund campaigns, burdening the winners with favours to return to their donors.

The expansion of digital space has also allowed third-party financing from prohibited sources, which remain unchecked.

Why can`t we have a more accountable ECP through constitutional amendments empowering parliament to impeach its members instead of the opaque Supreme Judicial Council? The process of appointment may also be strengthened to include parliamentary scrutiny of its members, which is open to the media and public.

The list of structural flaws, while not long, is complex. With three and a half years until the next general election, there is still time for political parties, on both sides of the aisle, to engage in a meaningful dialogue. Their sole aim must be to ensure that polls produce clear, credible and representative outcomes. Any parliamentary dialogue must be insulated from the shadows of status quo politics. Every party in power has been both a beneficiary and a victim of the current system.

Unless parliament makes electoral reform its top priority, democracy will remain fragile.

Future elections could deepen instability, especially with rising public engagement driven by the algorithmsof digitalmedia.Anydialoguebetween government and opposition must include electoral reform if Pakistan is to achieve political stability the foundation for sustainable economic growth.• The wnteris based in Islamabad and works with Free and Fair Election Network.