0

Opposition leader is arrested a week prior to elections in Pakistan. Can that be considered as pre poll rigging?

closed as unclear what you're asking by JonathanReez, user11249, bytebuster, Rupert Morrish, JJJ Oct 8 '18 at 5:16

Please clarify your specific problem or add additional details to highlight exactly what you need. As it's currently written, it’s hard to tell exactly what you're asking. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • 4
    Could you please provide a bit more context to this? – yannis Oct 7 '18 at 21:13
  • 2
    I assume you're referring to the arrest of Muhammad Shehbaz Sharif? The charges seem at least plausible. Whether the timing could be considered "poll rigging" seems like a bit of an opinionated question to me. – user11249 Oct 8 '18 at 0:29
  • when a government is specifically targeting a political party using government institutions, what do we call it? Before general elections of 2018 in Pakistan, the leader of the same political party with his daughter and son in law was put to jail on corruption charges. Later they got their sentence suspended after they have lost the 2018 general elections. Now a week before by elections, their president was arrested in the case for which He was not called for. Now his son will be facing a case of assets beyond means also. It seems its not opinionated, its reality. – Rana Wasif Oct 8 '18 at 16:02
1

Yes, arrest is the least preferred course of action for fair elections, and if it occurs 1 week prior to an election, for "surprise" evidence, it is very probably a case of election-rigging. It shouldn't happen without a public inquest.

Charges require a lot of evidence, in stable "democracies" a public inquest to find evidence, a session in the high parliaments and senates of the country would be necessary, to consider an arrest or another action.

Generally, fair causes of suspicion should fairly become public in the months prior to election, not the last week.

The criminal record of candidates should be scrutinized in the few months prior to the election, when they become celebrities, rather than in the week previous.

The election and selection process of the candidates, can normally help a party to select a candidate who is considered morally responsible.

Corruption is an endemic issue, and a lot of politicians consider than self-spending is a present to themselves, it's a difficult issue to deal with in all countries, especially one like Pakistan.

  • I do not know the specifics of the case to evaluate if it is foul play or not, but your "set of rules" has no backing and is awful. A) Judicial/police investigation is not "public", for evident reasons (criminals hiding/running away/destroying evidence); once accused the defendant has access to the info about the charges related to him but even then that information may be secret. B) a session in the high parliaments [...] would be necessary No. In many countries candidates are not entitled to any special protection. – SJuan76 Oct 8 '18 at 8:45
  • C) fair causes of suspicions should fairly become public Again, there is no need for this. D) The criminal record of candidates should be scrutinized in the few months prior to the election, when they become celebrities, rather than in the week previous Probably it is, but the criminal records is the list of crimes already proved, not those under investigation. And new info can alway surface (what happens if the candidate shoots someone in the 5th Avenue the week before? He is not arrested because "it should have been scrutinized in the previous months"? – SJuan76 Oct 8 '18 at 8:53
  • E) The election and selection process of the candidates, can normally help a party to select a candidate who is considered morally responsible. Two words: "Trump University". For the incoming USA elections, two candidates have been indicted and a third is running from jail. Enough said. And of course, if being a candidate gives immunity, corrupt people will have more incentives to become one. – SJuan76 Oct 8 '18 at 8:55
  • America is a millionaires Senate. Democracy is a blunt tool and our selection processes are the worst thing about election. Obama was not too bent at least it avoids dictatorships in theory. – com.prehensible Oct 8 '18 at 17:10
  • The opposition leader works in a legal adversarial debating system, so its natural that they scrutinize corruption scandals fairly among themselves. A leader of opposition is different from an ordinary civilian. Why do you think diplomatic immunity exists? Various reasons. They are targets of propaganda and framing schemes. – com.prehensible Oct 9 '18 at 17:16

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.