The martial law government led by Gen Ziaul Haq, injected the system of caretaker governments into Pakistan’s Constitution in 1985, apparently after the widely-believed rigging in 1977 election under an elected government.

The first caretaker government was selected by Gen. Zia in 1988 in his discretion after he prematurely dissolved the National Assembly and dismissed the government. Zia appointed only ministers directly reporting to him, without a caretaker PM. This was a heavily partisan anti-PPP and anti-Junejo caretaker Govt.

Since then, Pakistan has experienced seven caretaker prime ministers, out of which only three — Moeen Qureshi in 1993, Mir Hazar Khan Khoso in 2013 and Justice Nasirul Mulk in 2018 — may be considered neutral while others had explicit political leanings and did not contribute at all towards making the elections free and fair.

The Charter of Democracy signed by Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif in 2006 called for a ‘neutral’ caretaker government, a phrase conspicuously absent in the constitution even after the overhauling of constitutional scheme of caretaker governments through 18th and 20th amendments.

The caretaker government system in Pakistan is being viewed with increased scepticism since the 90-day mandate of the caretaker governments in the Punjab and KP was exceeded in April this year. The two governments not only continue to function but also, contrary to the provisions of Section 230 of the Elections Act, 2017, take long-term policy decisions.

The public trust in the caretaker governments was further undermined when the political parties opposed to Imran Khan publicly confessed that their nominated representatives were included in the caretaker government of KP. One of the caretaker ministers addressed a political party’s public meeting recently and the Election Commission had to order his dismissal.

The recent amendment in Section 230 of the Elections Act, 2017, which enhanced the powers of the unelected caretaker government runs counter to the preamble of the Constitution which states that “… the state shall exercise its powers and authority through the chosen representatives of the people”.

Recently, the name of Senator Ishaq Dar, the current finance minister, a senior leader of the PML-N and a close relative of Nawaz Sharif, surfaced as the future caretaker prime minister and while appearing on a recent prime time TV Talk show, he did not deny the possibility.

Senator Dar may be amply qualified to become prime minister because of his competence and long experience but his partisanship and close association with one political party make him absolutely unsuitable as a caretaker PM.

There have been widespread speculations after these two developments that the next caretaker government may continue for a longer period. These speculations remind one of Bangladesh’s experiences of caretaker governments from 1996 to 2011 which, although begun as a constitutional arrangement, morphed into an extra-constitutional military-backed technocratic government which lasted for about two years and could exit in 2008 only after considerable international pressure.

The Bangladesh parliament, chastened by the experience of a prolonged caretaker set-up, and encouraged by the ruling of the country’s supreme court declaring the caretaker system to be unconstitutional, finally wound up the system in 2011.

Prime Minister Hasina Wajid told parliament after the vote: “This is a historic moment for democracy. We can’t allow unelected people to oversee national elections.”

Pakistan is faced with two choices when the next National Assembly is elected. The first option is that it can reform the system to make sure that the caretaker system is strictly neutral. This choice, however, seems to be more utopian than realistic.

The second option is to wind up the prevailing flawed caretaker system because a majority of caretaker set-ups established in the past 35 years were neither neutral nor could their presence guarantee free and fair election in most of the cases.

Probably, Pakistan can take a cue from Bangladesh and review its experience of caretaker governments. We can also learn from the Indian experience where the elected government continues during the election but with drastically reduced powers under the strict watch of their election commission.