The elections in Gilgit-Baltistan have concluded without major violence, but the real test of the exercise begins after the last vote has been cast. The region voted for 24 directly contested seats after a four-month delay, with a large field of candidates, heavy security and the familiar promises of constitutional rights, development, employment and ownership of local resources, while unofficial results had started to pour in by the time of writing.
That polling day passed peacefully is welcome. However, in a region where representation has long existed under the shadow of constitutional ambiguity, peace at the polling station is only the first condition of legitimacy. The allegations raised by the PPP after polling closed must therefore be handled with care. Claims about delays in the issuance of Form-45s, changes in polling stations and voter lists, and the presence of federal ministers allegedly pressuring the local administration are, at this stage, allegations and therefore need to be tested through the election commission, tribunals and lawful procedures.
This is another old wound beneath the latest election. Every party campaigns in GB as if it alone can deliver constitutional rights, yet every government in Islamabad discovers, once in power, that the question is more complicated than its slogans.
The situation in Azad Jammu and Kashmir, though different in origin, sharpens the same lesson. The Jammu Kashmir Joint Awami Action Committee began around economic grievances that any elected government should have been able to address through timely politics: flour, electricity, privileges and public relief. The government now says many demands have been implemented or are in process, including withdrawal of cases, reinstatement of employees, relief payments, cabinet reduction and local government measures.
At the same time, not every demand can be conceded under pressure. The call to abolish refugee seats in the AJK Legislative Assembly is not a simple administrative adjustment. It touches the Kashmir cause, displaced communities, electoral balance and constitutional sensitivity.
Such a matter cannot be settled by street mobilisation, nor should any group be allowed to hold the electoral process hostage, especially with AJK elections scheduled for later this year. The state is right to protect order, preserve the integrity of the polls and prevent violence from dictating constitutional change.
Still, proscription is a grave step. The sealing of JAAC offices and arrests of activists may be defended by the authorities as necessary for law and order, particularly if there is evidence of weapons, incitement or organised violence. Such measures should not become the first language of political management. Bilawal Bhutto-Zardari’s decision to meet the prime minister and seek a solution through talks and the assembly offers a necessary opening. It should be used not for another temporary truce, but for a transparent political reset. *