Two years have passed since Pakistan’s General Elections held on February 8, 2024. While the elections were among the most competitive in recent history and witnessed over 60 million citizens exercising their voting rights, the post-election phase was marked by controversy and widespread contestation of results. Despite this context, a structured electoral reform process has yet to emerge.
Following the polls, election tribunals received 374 election petitions challenging the election results, including 124 for National Assembly constituencies and 250 for Provincial Assembly constituencies. Losing candidates from across the political spectrum — irrespective of whether their parties ultimately formed governments or joined the opposition — filed petitions questioning constituency outcomes.
The breadth and geographic spread of challenges suggested systemic concerns on the election results rather than isolated grievances. Two years on, adjudication of several petitions remains pending, contributing to prolonged political uncertainty and institutional strain.
Result Management System Under Scrutiny
A major source of post-election contention was the results management and consolidation process. Political actors raised concerns regarding delays in results compilation, inconsistencies between polling station–level results (Form-45) and consolidated constituency results (Form-47), and limited public access to real-time consolidation of results.
While the Election Commission of Pakistan maintained that the process complied with the legal framework, the entire episode underscored the reforms required regarding results transparency, verification, and public disclosure. International electoral practice indicates that technology-assisted election processes must be publicly verifiable, not merely procedurally compliant, to retain broad trust.
Optimizing the Results Management System
In view of recurring controversies surrounding results consolidation, FAFEN has consistently recommended that the ECP institutionalize structured constituency-level scrutiny of results prior to the notification of returned candidates. Such scrutiny can be undertaken using the existing Results Management System (RMS), without altering the statutory process for election petitions.
Rather than functioning merely as a placeholder for data aggregation, the RMS can be optimized to perform automated and manual cross-verification of polling station–level data (Form-45 and Form-46) against consolidated constituency results (Forms-47, Form-48 and Form-49). Built-in validation checks, anomaly detection protocols, and audit trails would allow the system to flag inconsistencies in vote tallies, turnout percentages, rejected ballots, and margins of victory, which could then be reviewed through clearly defined administrative procedures.
Pre-notification scrutiny would strengthen due diligence, reduce post-election litigation, and improve confidence in electoral outcomes.
Lessons from the Post-2013 Reform Process
Pakistan has navigated similar crises before. Following General Elections 2013, sustained political protest led to the formation of a 33-member Parliamentary Committee on Electoral Reforms in 2014. That committee undertook cross-party consultations and engaged civil society organizations, including FAFEN, to identify systemic weaknesses. The process contributed to major legislative and administrative reforms, culminating in the Elections Act, 2017. FAFEN had emphasized then that electoral credibility depends not only on polling-day administration but also on transparent results management, accessible dispute resolution, and institutional willingness to address systemic shortcomings. Those principles remain directly relevant today.
From Controversy to Corrective Reform
Despite the scale of contestation following GE-2024, no multi-party parliamentary mechanism has been constituted to examine systemic weaknesses highlighted during the electoral process. As a result, vulnerabilities in results management and dispute resolution remain largely unaddressed.
Two years after the elections, the absence of a structured reform agenda risks entrenching mistrust and prolonging political polarization. Strengthening verification mechanisms, improving the use of existing technology, and revisiting results management procedures remain necessary steps to restore confidence and ensure greater stability in future elections.
