November 8; PILDAT has welcomed the inclusion of the office of the President in the draft Code of Conduct released by the Election Commission of Pakistan. Long demanded by PILDAT, the ECP has finally included the President and Governors in the list of other elected executive officials, who are asked not to �combine their official visits with election campaign.� However, the scope under which the President and Governors, among other public office holders, have been covered is very limited, leading to the implication that other than campaign visits, if the President or Governors run election campaign or conduct meetings at their offices it will not be considered a violation.

PILDAT, through its Citizen Group on Election Process, has been calling on the ECP since 2007 for making it mandatory for the Presidents and Governors not to �implicitly or explicitly, support any political party or group in a public statement, speech or a meeting.� The Code should clearly put a complete ban on all manners of electoral activity by these offices.

PILDAT believes that it is not a code of conduct but strong electoral laws and their effective and instantaneous implementation by the ECP that will ensure a free, fair and credible election. A Code of Conduct, by definition, is to be a voluntary code adopted by the political parties themselves over and above the electoral law. Once parties initiate such a code, only then the ECP can hold them to such a code. The ECP�s responsibility, therefore, is to study the electoral-legal framework to see whether Pakistan requires an amendment for improving its electoral laws.

Analysing the draft code of conduct in its available detail, PILDAT has termed the Code as superfluous at some places and vague at others. PILDAT questioned the ECP to explain the legal basis for clauses 20 to 49. Clause 1 to 19 are already covered under the electoral law, Representation of the People Act and the Constitution and are therefore superfluous for the purpose of the draft code. Clause 20 of the Code calls for punishing violators of the �aforementioned provisions� leading to the understanding that those who violate clauses 1 � 19 will be tried under legal channels, whereas those who violate clauses 20-onwards may not be punishable by law.

PILDAT also believes that that the draft Code refers to selective clauses of election laws, creating an impression as if those clauses of the election laws which are not covered by the draft Code are clauses of lesser significance.

The draft Code also uses ambiguous terms leading to lack of clarity not only on the exact definition of what to avoid as well as whether and how supposed violations will be dealt with. For instance, the Code mentions that �Political Parties shall endeavour to provide equal opportunity,� �publicity shall be avoided,� and �Criticism of other political parties and opponent candidates shall be confined to their policies and programmes,� etc.

Similarly, the draft Code also uses several adjectives and abstract terms without elaboration. For instance, one point puts a check on holding �long distance�, car rallies resulting into a question as to what constitutes and qualifies as long distance; who will oversee and determine that and whether it is a punishable offence. Similarly, the Code also states that �if the procession is very long, it shall be organized in segments of suitable lengths.� Again this warrants an explanation on not only what will constitute a �very long� procession but also about the criteria of suitability of lengths. The Code also calls upon all political parties to �instill discipline� among members, leading again to a question as to how and who will decide whether or not discipline is being instilled.

There is also a contradiction between Clause 28 which calls for �a complete ban on carriage and display of all kinds of weapons and fire arms� and Clause 42 which asks political parties to exercise control �to the maximum extent possible in the matter of persons in the processions carrying weapons/articles.�

The draft Code of Conduct also retains the clause of the ECP directive of July 2012 based on the Supreme Court verdict (Constitution Petition No. 87 of 2011) issued ahead of NA-151-Multan IV bye-election in which it has placed a ban on the use of transport on election day except for candidates and their immediate family members. This clause became a cause of consternation not only for the candidates in the bye-election but also added quite a cost to the national exchequer as the ECP resorted to arranging vehicles in 29 out of 245 polling stations. It is unclear whether by placing a ban on transport, the ECP will itself arrange for transport for voters in polling stations beyond the 2 kilometres distance from the communities they serve. Provision of transport by the ECP will amount to a financial and administrative nightmare. Instead the ECP has to ensure that the number of polling stations is increased across the country in a way that communities can access these on foot.

The Code, as a primer, is a document over and above the law which is already in place. The idea behind the Code is that players to the game abide by certain rules that they decide about themselves, in addition to the electoral laws. The Code of Conduct is therefore supposed to be a voluntary act with more moral and ethical implications, rather than legal ones. It is for this reason that the Urdu term �Zabt-a-e-Akhlaq� meaning �Conduct of Ethics� is a more apt translation of the term.

This Code has been drafted by the ECP which has supposedly consulted with the political parties who will send their remarks back to the ECP before its finalisation. According to sources in various parties, the ECP has merely distributed copies of the draft code to parties and due to time constraints, no real consultation has taken place. In principle, the Code drafting process should be reverse of what is practiced now. Being a voluntary act, the Code should originate from amongst the parties who can then send their ideas to the ECP to consolidate it in a single code. This bottom-up approach is also followed in India.

PILDAT has urged political parties to carefully review the code of conduct and send their feedback to the ECP within the deadline so that the Code could reflect a broader consensus in the country.

Once the Code is approved, its effective and timely implementation will be the key issue. It is hoped that the ECP, under the leadership of Justice (Retd.) Fakhruddin G. Ebrahim as the CEC, who enjoys trust of the public and media, will bring to book all those who violate the code instantaneously and effectively without waiting on for any petition to be filed on violations.