While debate still rages over the not-long-ago fraudulent local bodies and the recent by-elections conducted by the current regime, the new computerised electoral lists released by Pakistan's election commission are threatening to put an electronic nail through the coffin of democracy. This is a non-trivial matter with potentially far-reaching implications for the future of Pakistani democracy. Once again, major political parties of Pakistan have displayed their anger over the possibility of electronic manipulation of public votes, which can call into question the very sanctity of the electoral process. More to the point, it can render vote counting more decisive than vote casting. 
Rather than assuaging the concerns of political parties, the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) has raised even more apprehensions about the transparency of the electoral process by not providing the electoral votes data in electronic form, so that political parties can verify it easily that an honest job was done. Why ECP is scared of detailed verification tests by use of electronic means? Here is why- Consider: 
There were 71.86 million voters as per electoral rolls used in 2002 general elections, and that this number should have increased to around 82 million in 2007, according to a 2.7 percent per year voters growth rate. The gap between registered voters and the number to which it should have jumped is around 27 million or 33 percent. 

It appears that ECP paid special attention to trim down women votes. The number of women voters has registered a huge decrease of 96 percent in FATA, 41 percent in Sindh, 37 percent in Punjab and 19 percent in Islamabad. When asked why there is a huge decline in the number of voters registered in 2007 as compared to 2002, Secretary ECP said on TV that only people with computerised National Identity Cards (CNIC) had been registered as voters, and that is why the number of registered voters is low. But not everyone, particularly those in rural areas, has been able to obtain this card, for a variety of reasons. Additionally, last year, ECP had itself allowed both old and new NICs for voter registration purposes. This flip-flop of ECP is sheer nonsense. 

While it is heartening that election reform is now receiving much-needed attention, we must guard against changes that inadvertently cause new electoral problems and create a remedy that is even worse than the cure. It now seems that a quiet manipulation of so-called e-revolution is taking place in Pakistan, where the stage is being set for a major electoral fraud. And the current administration is in full command of it. By the time it's over, the integrity of next elections will be in control of a few large and pro-PML (Q) private companies. These companies will largely remain unchallenged and evade any public scrutiny. Here is the open secret - rumour has it that one such Lahore based company managing the overall project of computerised electoral lists' preparation has close connections with the Chief Minister Punjab. 

Eyebrows have been raised against the previous elections conducted by the current regime, including the general elections in 2002 and the presidential referendum and local bodies elections in 2005. Most impartial observers term these elections as manipulated from behind the scenes. Given this history of questionable elections, there exists a great deal of mistrust between the current administration and major political parties. The current controversy of computerised preliminary electoral lists must be seen in the backdrop of this mutual distrust. It is this deficit of trust in the impartiality of state institutions that clouds even supposedly good intentions of the government. 
It is abundantly clear that any project of such vital importance must have a buy-in from major stakeholders. Major political parties representing the cross-section of public opinion in Pakistan are the true and genuine stakeholders of this project. If this is the case then why can't a member from each major political party sit on project steering committee and monitor the project performance, to verify the transparency of data, and to analyse the architecture of the computer application? 

After all, once the project is completed and system is up and running, it is these political parties who will have to live with the consequences of this computerised system. So, why not involve them at the outset and pre-empt any apprehensions about the transparency of the process? The Election Commission of Pakistan resisted the very sensible demand of key political parties to monitor this process at close quarters. Such reluctance by the election commission raises alarm bells across the political spectrum. 

Computerisation for the sake of computerisation without any business process reengineering is a recipe for status quo. Historically, there has been a discrepancy between the electoral rolls provided to political parties and the list sent to Presiding officers? 

It is not clear yet how the electronic system aims to surmount this problem. The common practice in the past was to prepare two separate lists Candidates were given one voters list i.e., precinct and polling station-wise list, in order to dupe them into believing that all names were included on the voter list. However, a second list was given to Presiding Officers which were entirely different and had 25% to 30% names missing, with the result that voters had to be sent away on polling day owing to an absence of their names from the voting lists. 

Hence, there is little doubt that the automation of electoral rolls is a project worth undertaking. But the manner in which the political parties are being excluded raises serious concerns regarding impartiality of the Election Commission of Pakistan. The danger is that if not managed properly automation of electoral rolls will strengthen the public perception that election outcomes are fixed by invisible hands and that vote counting is more decisive than vote casting!