An election is not a favour bestowed by politicians. It is a mandate entrusted to them; one that must be continually earned and sustained. The US midterm elections offered a timely reminder.
Political divisions may run deep. Voters must nevertheless retain the power to change the balance of power and hold those who govern to account. The US midterms demonstrated that power in practice.
Democrats flipped seven Senate seats and 44 individual congressional districts. They also captured 29 of the nation’s 50 governorships, claiming the nationwide majority of state executives for the first time in 16 years. The scale of these gains mattered, but their deeper significance lay in the electorate’s ability to translate discontent into political consequence.
The results proved a fundamental truth. In a true democracy, no constituency is permanently owned and political allegiance is never irrevocable. Yesterday’s support guarantees neither tomorrow’s consent nor a ruling party’s right to govern. Loyalty is not a lifetime contract and a vote is never an entitlement.
The ballot allows citizens to register dissatisfaction, change their representatives and alter the balance of power. Politicians who mistake electoral support for an entitlement lose sight of the very source of their authority.
For Pakistan, the comparison raises a fundamental question: not simply whether elections are held, but whether they command public confidence. Are voters’ choices credibly translated into representation? Do institutions safeguard electoral integrity? An election must do more than count votes; it must make them count.
Historically, Pakistan’s elections have been shadowed by allegations of systemic manipulation. The 2024 election intensified these concerns, with widespread complaints undermining public confidence. Observers highlighted restrictions on political rights, including a polling-day mobile shutdown and the removal of the main opposition’s electoral symbol, forcing candidates to contest under random identifiers.
While authorities defended these measures as legal and necessary, intense disputes over the final count persisted. Sharp discrepancies emerged between raw polling-station counts (Form 45) and final constituency tallies (Form 47), leading oversight bodies to note that the resulting outcomes struggled to command broad democratic legitimacy.
This legitimacy crisis, however, is not merely institutional; it is deeply political. Our politics remains centred on pursuing and retaining power rather than the responsibilities it entails. Allegiance is demanded and dissent is too often treated as defiance. The electorate, the very source of democratic legitimacy, risks being reduced to an instrument of political power rather than remaining the ultimate arbiter of who wields it.
Given its political polarisation and institutional pressures, the American example is not without flaws. Nevertheless, the definitive takeaway from the midterms is how electoral integrity underpins meaningful political representation, strengthens institutional checks and gives voters a constitutional means to hold those in power accountable.
The comparison is particularly pertinent to Pakistan, where electoral credibility and the legitimacy of political authority remain fundamental concerns. Elections alone do not make a democracy; the process must be credible, institutions impartial and the vote respected. Without these safeguards, voting risks becoming little more than a ritual to legitimise an existing power structure.
The same principle applies to every institution. None can command public confidence if its conduct reflects political bias, its authority is exercised selectively or its constitutional limits are treated as negotiable. Legitimacy rests on impartiality, constitutional restraint and fidelity to rule of law, not simply the authority it wields.
Elected governments are equally bound by these principles. An electoral mandate confers authority, not immunity from scrutiny. The right to govern entails accountability, including the obligation to tolerate criticism, respect dissent and accept electoral defeat.
A vote is neither a blank cheque nor an endorsement of every government decision. The real test comes when public opinion turns against those in office. That is when the distinction between exercising power and respecting a mandate becomes clear.
The significance of the American midterms extended far beyond shifting congressional control. By capturing both chambers, Democrats gained the direct institutional leverage to scrutinise the administration, launch investigations and block executive appointments or legislation. Voters altered not just who held power, but the constitutional constraints on how that power could be exercised.
Pakistan presents a deeper institutional challenge, as the credibility of democracy depends not only on who holds office but on the integrity of the electoral process itself. This places particular importance on the state’s institutional capacity to ensure impartial election administration, transparent procedures, and meaningful accountability.
These concerns have implications beyond the conduct of individual elections. They determine whether electoral outcomes are accepted as legitimate expressions of public choice and whether elected governments can claim a credible democratic mandate. When confidence in the process weakens, the link between popular consent and political authority becomes increasingly fragile.
These concerns extend beyond individual elections to the legitimacy of the governments they produce. Electoral outcomes must reflect genuine public choice to confer a credible democratic mandate. When confidence in that process erodes, so does the link between popular consent and political authority.
Nor does the electorate’s role end on polling day. Political parties, in government or opposition, must recognise that public support is neither inherited nor permanent. Mistaking political fatigue for satisfaction or silence for consent risks undermining their mandate.
Ultimately, democracy requires impartial institutions, constitutional restraint, freedom of dissent and credible elections. The true test of a free society is whether citizens retain the power to hold their rulers accountable and replace them. Deny them that power, and elections become an instrument of deception rather than an expression of popular will.
The writer explores the forces which shape power, belief and society. He can be reached at: [email protected]
Disclaimer: The viewpoints expressed in this piece are the writer’s own and don’t necessarily reflect Geo.tv’s editorial policy.
Originally published in The News
