ADVOCACY FOR ELECTORAL REFORMS

FINDINGS OF VOTERS’ LIST, DELIMITATION PROCESS AND POLLING SCHEME ASSESSMENTS OF DISTRICTS CHITRAL, LOWER , UPPER DIR, SHANGLA AND

DISCLAIMER While significant effort has been made to avoid any factual error, omission or commission is accepted and will be duly acknowledged with gratitutde. Please feel free to contact at [email protected]

Contents

Executive Summary ...... 1 Introduction ...... 4 Scope and Methodology of Assessment Studies ...... 5 A. Household Survey ...... 5 B. Stakeholder Interviews ...... 6 1. Interviews of DECs ...... 6 2. Interviews of DDOs ...... 7 3. Interviews of District Level Leaders of Political Parties ...... 7 Key Findings ...... 9 A. Voters’ List Assessment ...... 10 1. Household Registration and Preferred Address Consent Status ...... 10 2. Non-Registered Eligible-Age Members of households ...... 13 3. Additional Registration Needs for 2018 General Elections...... 15 B. Delimitation Process: Awareness, Transparency and Grievance Redress ...... 20 1. Citizens’ knowledge of Delimitation Process...... 20 2. Citizens’ Input in Delimitation Process ...... 25 3. Political Parties’ Input in Delimitation Process ...... 32 4. Delimitation: Dispute Settlement Mechanism ...... 38 C. Polling Scheme: Awareness, Transparency and Grievance Redress ...... 47 1. Citizens’ knowledge of Polling Scheme ...... 47 2. Political Parties’ Input in Polling Scheme Formulation ...... 52 3. Citizen’s Input in Polling Staff Appointment ...... 58 4. Polling Stations’ Establishment on Election-day ...... 63

Findings of Voters’ List, Delimitation Process and Polling Scheme Assessments of Districts Chitral, Lower Dir, Upper Dir, Shangla and Swat

Executive Summary This report is based on a survey of 96 households in District Chitral, 256 in District Lower Dir, 160 in District Shangla, 528 in District Swat and 192 in Upper Dir; and interviews with the District Election Commissioners (DECs), District Delimitation Officers (DDOs) and local leadership of the five leading political parties (as per the results of the 2013 General Elections) in these districts. The summary of key findings related to the existing status of voters’ registration and future electoral needs and the participation of citizens and political parties in, and their contribution to, the processes of constituency delimitation and polling scheme formulation is as follows:

Voters’ Registration: Existing Status and Future Needs

 Only 8% (8 out of 96) households surveyed in Chitral, 8% (20 out of 256) respondents of the household survey in Lower Dir, 14% (22 out of 160) in Shangla, 15% (80 out of 528) in Swat and 6% (12 out of 192) in Upper Dir reported that no one in their household was consulted about their preferred address for registration on the voters’ list.  As many as 50% (48 out of 96) households surveyed in Chitral, 68% (175 out of 256) in Lower Dir,, 37% (59 out of 160) in Shangla, 53% (281 out of 528) in Swat and 60% (116 out of 192) in Upper Dir had at least one eligible-age member who is currently not registered on the voters’ list.  For the General Election 2018, the voter effort will also contend with registration household members who are currently not eligible to be on the voters’ list but will be before the announcement of election schedule. As many 55% (53 out of 96) households surveyed in Chitral, 69% (176 out of 256) in Lower Dir, 39% (63 out of 160) in Shangla, 52% (276 out of 528) in Swat and 53% (101 out of 192) in Upper Dir have at least one 15-17 year old member who will be eligible for registration on the voters’ list before the 2018 General Elections.

Constituency Delimitation: Citizens’ Knowledge and Input

 As many as 33% (32 out of 96) households surveyed in Chitral, 97% (249 out of 256) in Lower Dir, 31% (49 out of 160) in Shangla, 90% (475 out of 528) in Swat and 92% (188 out of 192) survey in Upper Dir reported that they did not know about the last constituency delimitation in their district.  Of the small number of respondents who knew about the last delimitation in their district, only 1 in Chitral, 1 in Shangla and 1 in Swat claimed that they had shared their recommendations/objections with the delimitation authority.  In comparison, all the district-level leaders of the five leading political parties were more engaged in the delimitation process.

Page 1 of 76

Findings of Voters’ List, Delimitation Process and Polling Scheme Assessments of Districts Chitral, Lower Dir, Upper Dir, Shangla and Swat

o Leader of 1 of the 5 Political parties interviewed in Swat, 3 of the 5 in Upper Dir and Lower Dir claimed to have raised objections on the appointment of certain delimitation officers at the time of last delimitation in their district. o Leaders of 4 of the 5 political parties interviewed in Swat, 2 of the 5 in Shangla and Chitral, 3 of the 5 in Upper Dir and Lower Dir claimed to have submitted their recommendations/objections to the delimitation authority at the time of the initial delimitation listing. o Leaders of 3 of the 5 political parties interviewed in Swat and Upper Dir, 2 of the 5 in Shangla and Chitral and 1 of the 5 in Lower Dir who had submitted their recommendations/objections to the delimitation authority reported that they were dissatisfied with the mechanism adopted for addressing their objections. o Leaders of 2 of the 5 political parties interviewed in Swat, 1 of the 5 in Shangla and Lower Dir and 3 of the 5 in Upper Dir did not consider the proceedings of the delimitation authority impartial.

Polling Scheme Formulation: Citizens’ Knowledge and Input

 Of the under-study districts, only the DECs of Swat, Chitral, Lower Dir, Upper Dir reported that the initial polling scheme had been publicized in their districts for citizens’ input. In line with this, leaders of 1 of the 5 political parties interviewed in Shangla and 2 of the 5 in Lower Dir, reported that the initial polling scheme had been publicized in their district for citizens’ input.  Only 3% (3 out of 96) respondents of the household survey in Chitral, 1 out of 256 in Lower Dir, 4% (21 out of 528) in Swat and 1 out of 192 in Upper Dir reported that the voters in their area had been consulted before assigning of polling stations.  The DECs of the under-study districts claimed that input had been sought from political parties and candidates before the draft polling scheme. o Among the political parties, leader of only 1 out of 5 political parties’ interviewed in Swat, 2 of the 5 in Shangla, 1 of the 5 in Upper Dir and 1 of the 5 in Lower Dir reported that their input had been sought before the draft polling scheme. o Leaders of 3 of the 5 political parties interviewed in Swat and Shangla, 2 of the 5 in Chitral, 4 of the 5 in Upper Dir and Lower Dir claimed to have registered their objections to the draft polling scheme. o Leaders of only 3 of the 5 political parties’ interviewed in Shangla, 2 of the 5 in Chitral and Lower Dir and 1 in Upper Dir reported that their parties’ objections on the polling scheme had been heard by concerned officials. o Leaders of Only 2 of the 5 political parties interviewed in Shangla and Chitral reported that they were satisfied with the remedial measures adopted by the ECP to address their parties’ objections on the draft polling scheme.

Page 2 of 76

Findings of Voters’ List, Delimitation Process and Polling Scheme Assessments of Districts Chitral, Lower Dir, Upper Dir, Shangla and Swat

 The DECs of all the under-study districts stated that polling stations had been established as per the final polling scheme in the most recent elections. o In line with this, leaders of all the 5 political parties interviewed in Swat, Shangla and Chitral and 4 of the 5 in Upper Dir and Lower Dir stated that polling stations had been established as per the final polling scheme in the most recent elections.  39% (37 out of 96) households surveyed survey in Chitral, 41% (106 out of 256) in Lower Dir, 35% (56 out of 160) in Shangla, 31% (166 out of 528) in Swat and 14% (27 out of 192) in Upper Dir reported that the polling station assigned to them had not been the closest to their house.  14% (13 out of 96) households surveyed survey in Chitral, 2 out of 160 in Shangla, 4 out of 528 in Swat and 1 out of 192 in Upper Dir reported that the polling station assigned to them had not been established in a neutral area.

Page 3 of 76

Findings of Voters’ List, Delimitation Process and Polling Scheme Assessments of Districts Chitral, Lower Dir, Upper Dir, Shangla and Swat Introduction An electoral system that inspires public confidence is critical to strengthening democracy in . The country’s existing constitutional, legal and administrative system for conducting elections fails to meet the internationally accepted standards of electoral freedom, fairness, neutrality and transparency. Therefore, it needs to undergo comprehensive reforms to enhance the quality of future elections, thereby helping democracy to take firm root. The observation findings of national and international observer groups and, more important, the controversy following the 2013 General Elections leaves little room for delaying critical reforms in the run-up to the 2018 General Elections. The need for substantial electoral reforms has been long felt by analysts and other stakeholders because no general elections in Pakistan, barring the 1970 ones, have been free of controversy and claims of foul play. The political stand-off in the aftermath of the 2013 General Elections has once again brought the issue to the limelight and prompted demands for electoral reforms from almost all concerned, including the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP). Subsequently, a 33-member all-party bicameral parliamentary committee for electoral reforms has been constituted to look into the gaps in the country’s electoral process. These developments have allowed civil society groups and NGOs to play their role in constructively engaging key stakeholders for safeguarding and furthering citizens’ political rights. To account for citizens’ genuine concerns and aspirations in the debate for electoral reforms, USAID Citizens’ Voice Project has provided support to its partner organizations spread all across Pakistan to: a. Strengthen citizens’ voice for electoral reforms through, among others, focused engagements with political parties, the media, professional associations and the ECP, as recommended by national and international election observation groups after the 2013 General Elections; and b. Strengthen citizens’ oversight of the electoral process, including but not limited to up-gradation of electoral rolls and delimitation of electoral constituencies, for greater transparency and accountability.

The approach allows for:  Evidence-based advocacy for addressing area-specific issues that have a significant bearing on citizens’ electoral and representational rights; and  Engaging district level stakeholders in the macro-level debate on legal and structural framework of the electoral system.

To scale the incidence and prevalence of local level issues that impinge on citizens’ rights and capacity to exercise their electoral rights, voters’ list, delimitation process and polling scheme assessments were carried out to inform the agenda for reforms with objective data. This report presents the tabulation of key findings of household and stakeholder surveys to: a. Identify district level issues in voter registration, delimitation process and polling scheme formulation; and b. Share position of district vis-à-vis provincial and national level findings to determine the scope and scale of issues.

This report covers the findings for Chitral, Lower Dir, Shangla, Swat and Upper Dir districts of province.

Page 4 of 76

Findings of Voters’ List, Delimitation Process and Polling Scheme Assessments of Districts Chitral, Lower Dir, Upper Dir, Shangla and Swat Scope and Methodology of Assessment Studies The assessment studies for identifying the scale and scope of issues related to voters’ list, delimitation process and polling scheme formulation demanded the allocation of substantial resources to allow for district level trends. Subsequently, one of the largest data collection exercises in the country’s history was initiated, accounting for data from 40,000 households spread across 111 of the country’s 124 districts. For comprehensive coverage of the subject areas from key stakeholders’ perspective, the household survey was complemented by interviews of District Election Commissioners (DECs), District Delimitation Officers (DDOs) and the district level leadership of top five vote-polling political parties. The following section details the target and actual achievements, as well as the methodological concepts that guided the assessments:

A. Household Survey The household survey constitutes a critical component of documenting citizens’ experience of the electoral process. More specifically, it aims at documenting the state of registration of the households surveyed, and citizens’ knowledge of and participation in the delimitation process and formulation of polling scheme. The data was sought and recorded on structured hard copy questionnaires. The following steps outline key features of the sampling method followed for extracting representative sample for provincial and national level aggregations of findings: The objective of getting a representative sample of households that could provide not only the base for provincial and national level inferences but also broader trends at the district level was operationalized in the random selection of 2,500 communities. For this purpose, the digitized data of all census blocs with registered voters was employed as the sampling frame for the household survey. Applying Probability Proportionate-to-Size sampling, the targeted number of communities was selected from the list of census blocs representing all the communities in the four provinces (Balochistan, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Punjab and Sindh) and Islamabad Capital Territory. The Federally Administered Tribal Areas, Gilgit-Baltistan, and Azad Jammu and Kashmir were excluded from the sampling frame at the outset, as were the following districts in Balochistan, Punjab and Sindh:  Balochistan: Kharan, Panjgur and Washuk;  Punjab: Nankana Sahib, Okara, Sahiwal and Toba Tek Singh; and  Sindh: Badin, Karachi East, Korangi, Malir, Sajawal and Thatta.

The districts in Punjab and Sindh were left out because of the unavailability of partner organizations there, while the districts in Balochistan were excluded because of security hazards. Once operationalized, the household survey in Gwadar and Kech districts of Balochistan had to be abandoned because the security and logistical concerns rendered the measures for ensuring data integrity redundant. In essence, the findings derived from the revised sample are representative of all districts of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP) and all but the excluded districts of the other three provinces. Within the sampled communities, the selection of households was carried out following a systematic random selection method that established an objective, and a verifiable track for the selection of street, primary household and 15 other households in each of the selected communities. Employing Right Hand Rule, 16 households were targeted in each of the 2,500 sampled communities. The distribution of sampled communities and targeted number of households, as well as successful completion across each province and district under-study, is as follows: A total of 2,500 communities and 40,000 households were targeted for the survey. Of these, 95 communities (1,520 households) were located in Balochistan; 401 communities (6,416 households) in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa; 1,486 communities (23,776 households) in Punjab; and 493 communities (7,888 households) in Sindh. Of the sampled 2,500 communities (40,000 households) nationwide, 2,421 (38,704 households) were successfully surveyed. Of these, 90 communities (1,433 households) were located in Balochistan; 394 communities (6,302 households) in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa; 1,451 communities (23,210 households) in Punjab; and 486 communities (7,759 households) in Sindh.

Page 5 of 76

Findings of Voters’ List, Delimitation Process and Polling Scheme Assessments of Districts Chitral, Lower Dir, Upper Dir, Shangla and Swat

Table 1: Household Sample – Targeted Vs. Achieved Communities Households Households District Communities Sampled Surveyed Sampled Surveyed National 2,500 2,421 40,000 38,704 Balochistan 95 90 1,520 1,433 KP 401 394 6,416 6,302 Punjab 1,486 1,451 23,776 23,210 Sindh 493 486 7,888 7,759 Chitral 7 6 112 96 Lower Dir 16 16 256 256 Shangla 10 10 160 160 Swat 33 33 528 528 Upper Dir 12 12 192 192

As for the targeted districts of this report, Chitral had 6 communities (96 households) sampled, Lower Dir had 16 communities (256 households) sampled, Shangla had 10 communities (160 households) sampled, Swat had 33 communities (528 household) sampled, while Upper Dir had 12 communities (192 households sampled). The survey teams successfully achieved all the targets in these districts.

B. Stakeholder Interviews Along with the household survey, District Election Commissioners and Delimitation Officers, as well as the local leadership of up to five political parties in each district, were interviewed to get a more comprehensive picture of the three subject areas that are critical to preserving citizens’ electoral rights: voters’ list, delimitation process and polling scheme. Conducted on separate structured questionnaires, these interviews provide perspectives from key stakeholders on common subjects.

1. Interviews of DECs DECs are the ECP’s senior-most representatives in each district. The study aimed at interviewing the DECs of all the districts where household and other stakeholders’ interviews had been planned. Upper and Lower Kohistan were established post-2013 elections and they had a common DEC before that, thus the targeted districts appear one less than that number of targeted districts for the household survey.

Table 2: District Election Commissioner Interviews – Targeted Vs. Achieved Targeted Interviews Interviews Conducted National 110 103 Balochistan 29 23 KP 25 24 Sindh 23 23 Punjab 33 33 Chitral 1 1 Lower Dir 1 1 Shangla 1 1 Swat 1 1 Upper Dir 1 1

As Table 2 illustrates, 103 of the targeted 110 DECs were interviewed. Of these, 23 of 29 targeted DECs were interviewed in Balochistan; 24 of the targeted 25 in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa; and all 23 and 33 of Sindh and Punjab, respectively. As for the districts under study, the DECs of Chital, Lower Dir, Shangla, Swat and Upper Dir were interviewed.

Page 6 of 76

Findings of Voters’ List, Delimitation Process and Polling Scheme Assessments of Districts Chitral, Lower Dir, Upper Dir, Shangla and Swat

2. Interviews of DDOs District Delimitation Officers (DDOs) play a crucial role in drafting the initial area listing that provides the base for delimitation of constituencies. While the DECs also act as DDOs in some cases, they are mostly appointed for the specific task of conducting preliminary delimitation of areas. As with the DECs, the DDOs are also among the key stakeholders at the district level since their conduct has a direct bearing on the citizens’ right to equitable representation.

Table 3: District Delimitation Officer Interviews – Targeted Vs. Achieved Targeted Interviews Interviews Conducted National 110 103 Balochistan 29 22 KP 25 25 Sindh 23 23 Punjab 33 33 Chitral 1 1 Lower Dir 1 1 Shangla 1 1 Swat 1 1 Upper Dir 1 1

Against the target of 110 (1 per district), 103 DDOs were interviewed for the purpose of providing the official perspective on the delimitation process in the respective district. Of these, 22 of the 29 targeted DDOs were interviewed in Balochistan.

Among the five subject districts, all five DDOs could be interviewed.

3. Interviews of District Level Leaders of Political Parties The political parties are the key stakeholders in the electoral system. They have a legally defined role to participate in almost all aspects of the electoral system. The study of key aspects of the electoral system would therefore be lacking without accounting for the perspective of political party leaders. In order to get adequate feedback from the political parties, the study’s scope required interviews of as many as five leading political parties in each district. The selection was based on the performance of the political parties in the last general elections: five political parties that polled the highest number of votes in the respective district in the 2013 General Elections contesting for National Assembly and/or the respective provincial assembly. For the 110 districts, the overall target was 550 interviews of district level political party leaders.

Table 4: District Level Political Party Leader Interviews – Targeted Vs. Achieved Targeted Interviews Interviews Conducted National 550 522 Balochistan 145 126 KP 125 125 Punjab 165 161 Sindh 115 110 Chitral 5 5 Lower Dir 5 5 Shangla 5 5 Swat 5 5 Upper Dir 5 5

Page 7 of 76

Findings of Voters’ List, Delimitation Process and Polling Scheme Assessments of Districts Chitral, Lower Dir, Upper Dir, Shangla and Swat

Overall, 528 interviews of district-level political party leaders were conducted. Of these, 126 interviews were carried out in the districts of Balochistan, 125 in KP, 161 in Punjab and 110 in Sindh.

Of the three districts discussed in this report, 5 interviews of political parties’ leaders were achieved in Chitral, Lower Dir, Shangla, Swat and Upper Dir.

Page 8 of 76

Findings of Voters’ List, Delimitation Process and Polling Scheme Assessments of Districts Chitral, Lower Dir, Upper Dir, Shangla and Swat Key Findings The key findings of the survey have been categorized under three broad heads: voters’ list, delimitation process and polling scheme. The formulation of the data has been done with a view to reflecting the trends at the district level. Next, these trends have been compared with provincial and national level trends to identify any variation specific to the target district(s). The frequency of response options has been aggregated for each question for individual district, the respective province and the overall nationwide survey to provide a context to district-level trends.

Please note that the findings at the district level are not to be treated as representative of the individual district and merely reflect the trends in the surveyed households.

Page 9 of 76

Findings of Voters’ List, Delimitation Process and Polling Scheme Assessments of Districts Chitral, Lower Dir, Upper Dir, Shangla and Swat A. Voters’ List Assessment This chapter highlights the state of registration of households and individual members of the sampled households. Registration on the voters’ list is a pre-requisite for otherwise eligible citizens if they are to exercise their right to vote. In essence, registration on voters’ list determines whether a citizen, other criteria notwithstanding, is allowed to exercise his/her right to vote.

1. Household Registration and Preferred Address Consent Status Two critical issues have been explored in this section: (a) whether the household is registered on the voters’ list as the preferred address with the consent of its members; and (b) whether all eligible-age household members are registered on the voters’ list.

The first has the potential to determine the likelihood of household members casting their vote. For instance, while more and more people are settling in urban centers, the permanent addresses mentioned on their CNICs are seldom updated. Without regular updating of the voters’ list to account for these changes and barring any proactive pursuit by the registered voters themselves, a significant number of those not registered as voters on their preferred address are likely to be less motivated to vote in their hometowns because that would require additional travel and time.

A-1.1. Consent for Preferred Registration Address

Since the existing legal provisions allow for registration of vote on permanent, temporary or any other address where a citizen has business/property, regular updating of the voters’ list reflecting the voters’ consent for preferred address assumes significant importance. It was asked of the respondents of the household survey whether their households’ members were asked about their preferred address.

 In Chitral, of the 96 respondents of the household survey: o 71 (74%) reported that their household members’ consent had been sought for the registration of their preferred address on the voters’ list o 8 (8%) stated that their household members’ consent had not been sought.

 In Lower Dir, of the 256 respondents of the household survey: o 231 (90%) reported that their household members’ consent had been sought for the registration of their preferred address on the voters’ list o 20 (8%) stated that their household members’ consent had not been sought.

 In Shangla, of the160 respondents of the household survey: o 134 (84%) reported that their household members’ consent had been sought for the registration of their preferred address on the voters’ list o 22 (14%) stated that their household members’ consent had not been sought.

 In Swat, of the 528 respondents of the household survey: o 447 (85%) reported that their household members’ consent had been sought for the registration of their preferred address on the voters’ list o 80 (15%) stated that their household members’ consent had not been sought.

 In Upper Dir, of the 192 respondents of the household survey: o 136 (71%) reported that their household members’ consent had been sought for the registration of their preferred address on the voters’ list o 12 (6%) stated that their household members’ consent had not been sought.

Page 10 of 76

Findings of Voters’ List, Delimitation Process and Polling Scheme Assessments of Districts Chitral, Lower Dir, Upper Dir, Shangla and Swat

Table A-1.1. Was your household members’ consent sought for their preferred address for registration on the existing voters’ list? National KPK Chitral Lower Dir Shangla Swat Upper Dir Yes 29,577 5,152 71 231 134 447 136 No 7,156 839 8 20 22 80 12 Don’t Know 1,826 295 17 5 4 1 44 Refused to answer 86 16 - - - - - Interview 1 ------Abandoned* Interview 58 ------Refused** Grand Total 38,704 6,302 96 256 160 528 192 *Respondents who did not complete the survey and abandoned it before answering this question. **Respondents who refused to be interviewed and did not answer any question.

 At the national level, of the 38,704 respondents of the household survey: o 29,577 (76%) reported that their household members’ consent had been sought for the registration of their preferred address on the voters’ list o 7,156 (18%) stated that their consent had not been sought o 1,826 (5%) did not know whether their household members’ consent for their preferred address had been sought or not.

 In Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, of the 6,302 respondents of the household survey: o 5,152 (82%) reported that their household members’ consent had been sought for the registration of their preferred address on the voters’ list. o 839 (13%) stated that their consent had not been sought. o 295 (5%) did not know whether their household members’ consent for their preferred address had been sought or not.

Page 11 of 76

Findings of Voters’ List, Delimitation Process and Polling Scheme Assessments of Districts Chitral, Lower Dir, Upper Dir, Shangla and Swat

A-1.2. Household Registered on their Existing Address

As one of the indicators of how reecently the voters’ list were updated and as a factor in turnout, it was asked of the respondents of the household survey whether majority of their household members were currently registered as voters on their existing address, the following trends emerged in the under-study districts:

 In Chitral, of the 96 respondents of the household survey: o All 96 reported that the majority of their household members were registered on their existing address.

 In Lower Dir, of the 256 respondents of the household survey: o 254 (99%) reported that the majority of their household members were registered on their existing address.

 In Shangla, of the 160 respondents of the household survey: o 159 (99%) reported that the majority of their household members were registered on their existing address.

 In Swat, of the 528 respondents of the household survey o 498 (94%) reported that the majority of their household members were registered on their existing address o 29 (5%) stated that they were not.

 In Upper Dir, of the 192 respondents of the household survey: o 180 (94%) reported that the majority of their household members were registered on their existing address o 2 stated that they were not.

Table A-1.2. Are the majority of your household members registered on this address? National KPK Chitral Lower Dir Shangla Swat Upper Dir Yes 32,837 5,775 96 254 159 498 180 No 4,595 463 - - 1 29 2 Don’t Know 1,019 56 - 2 - 1 9 Refused to answer 194 8 - - - - 1 Interview Abandoned* 1 ------Interview Refused** 58 ------Grand Total 38,704 6,302 96 256 160 528 192 *Respondents who did not complete the survey and abandoned it before answering this question. **Respondents who refused to be interviewed and did not answer any question.

 At the national level, of the 38,704 respondents of the household survey: o 32,837 (85%) reported that the majority of their household members were registered on their existing address o 4,595 (12%) stated that they were not o 1,019 (3%) did not know whether majority of their household members were registered on their existing address or not.

 In Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, of the 6,302 respondents of the household survey: o 5,775 (92%) reported that the majority of their household members were registered on their existing address o 463 (7%) stated that they were not.

Page 12 of 76

Findings of Voters’ List, Delimitation Process and Polling Scheme Assessments of Districts Chitral, Lower Dir, Upper Dir, Shangla and Swat

2. Non-Registered Eligible-Age Members of households

A-2.1. Non-Registered Household Members

To get a better idea of the prevalence of eligible-age individuals (those aged 18 and above) not being registered as voters, the respondents of the household survey were asked whether they had any such member in their household. The responses in the target districts were as follows:

 In Chitral, of the 96 respondents of the household survey: o 48 (50%) reported at least one eligible-age household member who was currently not registered as a voter o 48 (50%) stated that all eligible-age members of their household were registered.

 In Lower Dir, of the 256 respondents of the household survey: o 175 (68%) reported at least one eligible-age household member who was currently not registered as a voter o 80 (31%) stated that all eligible-age members of their household were registered.

 In Shangla, of the 160 respondents of the household survey: o 59 (37%) reported at least one eligible-age household member who was currently not registered as a voter o 100 (63%) stated that all eligible-age members of their household were registered o Only 1 did not know whether all eligible-age members of their household were registered or not.

 In Swat, of the 528 respondents of the household survey: o 281 (53%) reported at least one eligible-age household member who was currently not registered as a voter o 243 (46%) stated that all eligible-age members of their household were registered o Only 4 did not know whether all eligible-age members of their household were registered or not.

 In Upper Dir, of the 192 respondents of the household survey o 116 (60%) reported at least one eligible-age household member who was currently not registered as a voter o 73 (38%) stated that all eligible-age members of their household were registered o Only 1 did not know whether all eligible-age members of their household were registered or not.

Table A-2.1. Do you have any eligible-age household member who is currently not registered as a voter? National KPK Chitral Lower Dir Shangla Swat Upper Dir Yes 11,326 2,234 48 175 59 281 116 No 24,452 3,823 48 80 100 243 73 Don’t Know 2,362 196 - - 1 4 1 Refused to answer 486 48 - 1 - - 2 Interview 20 1 - - - - - Abandoned* Interview Refused** 58 ------Grand Total 38,704 6,302 96 256 160 528 192 *Respondents who did not complete the survey and abandoned it before answering this question. **Respondents who refused to be interviewed and did not answer any question.

Page 13 of 76

Findings of Voters’ List, Delimitation Process and Polling Scheme Assessments of Districts Chitral, Lower Dir, Upper Dir, Shangla and Swat

 At the national level, of the 38,704 respondents of the household survey: o 11,326 (29%) reported at least one eligible-age household member who was currently not registered as a voter o 24,452 (63%) stated that all eligible-age members of their household were registered o 2,362 (6%) did not know whether all eligible-age members of their household were registered or not.

 In Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, of the 6,302 respondents of the household survey: o 2,234 (35%) reported at least one eligible-age household member who was currently not registered as a voter o 3,823 (61%) stated that all eligible-age members of their household were registered o 196 (3%) did not know whether all eligible-age members of their household were registered or not.

Page 14 of 76

Findings of Voters’ List, Delimitation Process and Polling Scheme Assessments of Districts Chitral, Lower Dir, Upper Dir, Shangla and Swat

3. Additional Registration Needs for 2018 General Elections A-3.1. Households with pre-2018 Registration Needs

In order to assess the voter registration requirements before the 2018 General Elections, the respondents were asked about their household members aged 15-17, individuals who would be voting-age citizens prior to the next General Election year -- 2018.

 In Chitral, of the 96 respondents of the household survey: o 53 (55%) reported at least one 15-17 year old member in their household o 43 (45%) did not have any 15-17 year old member in their household.

 In Lower Dir, of the 256 respondents of the household survey: o 176 (69%) reported at least one 15-17 year old member in their household o 78 (30%) did not have any 15-17 year old member in their household o Only 2 refused to answer this question.

 In Shangla, of the 160 respondents of the household survey: o 63 (39%) reported at least one 15-17 year old member in their household o 95 (59%) did not have any 15-17 year old member in their household o Only 2 refused to answer this question.

 In Swat, of the 528 respondents of the household survey: o 276 (52%) reported at least one 15-17 year old member in their household o 238 (45%) did not have any 15-17 year old member in their household o 14 (3%) refused to answer this question.

 In Upper Dir, of the 192 respondents of the household survey: o 101 (53%) reported at least one 15-17 year old member in their household o 90 (47%) did not have any 15-17 year old member in their household o Only 1 refused to answer this question.

Table A-3.1. Do you have any 15-17 year old member in your household? National KPK Chitral Lower Dir Shangla Swat Upper Dir Yes 13,421 2,834 53 176 63 276 101 No 20,699 2,820 43 78 95 238 90 Refused to Answer 4,482 647 - 2 2 14 1 Interview Abandoned* 44 1 - - - - - Interview Refused** 58 ------Grand Total 38,704 6,302 96 256 160 528 192 *Respondents who did not complete the survey and abandoned it before answering this question.

**Respondents who refused to be interviewed and did not answer any question.

 At the national level, of the 38,704 respondents of the household survey: o 13,421 (35%) reported at least one 15-17 year old member in their household o 20,699 (53%) did not have any 15-17 year old member in their household o 4,482 (12%) refused to answer this question.

 In Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, of the 6,302 respondents of the household survey: o 2,834 (45%) reported at least one 15-17 year old member in their household o 2,820 (45%) did not have any 15-17 year old member in their household o 647 (10%) refused to answer this question.

Page 15 of 76

Findings of Voters’ List, Delimitation Process and Polling Scheme Assessments of Districts Chitral, Lower Dir, Upper Dir, Shangla and Swat

A-3.2. Households with pre-2018 Male Voter Registration Needs

To determine the future registration needs of potential male voters, the respondents of the household survey were asked about the number of 15-17 year old male members in their household.

 In Chitral, of the 96 respondents of the household survey: o 54 (56%) reported no 15-17 year old male member in their household o 41 (43%) had one or two 15-17 year old male member(s) in their household o 1 had 3 or more 15-17 year old male members in their household.

 In Lower Dir, of the 256 respondents of the household survey: o 117 (46%) reported no 15-17 year old male member in their household o 132 (52%) had one or two 15-17 year old male member(s) in their household o 5 (2%) had 3 or more 15-17 year old male members in their household o 2 refused to answer this question.

 In Shangla, of the 160 respondents of the household survey: o 110 (69%) reported no 15-17 year old male member in their household o 46 (29%) had one or two 15-17 year old male member(s) in their household o 2 had 3 or more 15-17 year old male members in their household o 2 refused to answer this question.

 In Swat, of the 528 respondents of the household survey: o 324 (61%) reported no 15-17 year old male member in their household o 185 (35%) had one or two 15-17 year old male member(s) in their household o 5 (1%) had 3 or more 15-17 year old male members in their household o 14 (3%) refused to answer this question.

 In Upper Dir, of the 192 respondents of the household survey: o 106 (55%) reported no 15-17 year old male member in their household o 82 (43%) had one or two 15-17 year old male member(s) in their household o 3 (2%) had 3 or more 15-17 year old male members in their household o 1 refused to answer this question.

Table A-3.2. How many 15-17 year old male members do you have in your household? National KPK Chitral Lower Dir Shangla Swat Upper Dir None 24,464 3,485 54 117 110 324 106 1 to 2 Males 9,078 2,013 41 132 46 185 82 3 or More 553 143 1 5 2 5 3 Refused to answer 4,507 660 - 2 2 14 1 Interview Abandoned* 44 1 - - - - - Interview Refused** 58 ------Grand Total 38,704 6,302 96 256 160 528 192 *Respondents who did not complete the survey and abandoned it before answering this question. **Respondents who refused to be interviewed and did not answer any question.

 At the national level, of the 38,704 respondents of the household survey: o 24,464 (63%) reported no 15-17 year old male member in their household o 9,078 (23%) had one or two 15-17 year old male member(s) in their household o 553 (1%) had three or more 15-17 year old male members in their household

Page 16 of 76

Findings of Voters’ List, Delimitation Process and Polling Scheme Assessments of Districts Chitral, Lower Dir, Upper Dir, Shangla and Swat

o 4,507 (12%) refused to answer this question.

 In Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, of the 6,302 respondents of the household survey: o 3,485 (55%) reported no 15-17 year old male member in their household o 2,013 (32%) had one or two 15-17 year old male member(s) in their household o 143 (2%) had three or more 15-17 year old male members in their household o 660 (10%) refused to answer this question.

Page 17 of 76

Findings of Voters’ List, Delimitation Process and Polling Scheme Assessments of Districts Chitral, Lower Dir, Upper Dir, Shangla and Swat

A-3.3. Households with pre-2018 Female Voter Registration Needs

To determine the future registration needs of potential female voters, the respondents of the household survey were separately asked about the number of 15-17 year old female members in their household.

 In Chitral, of the 96 respondents of the household survey: o 72 (75%) reported no 15-17 year old female member in their household o 24 (25%) had one or two 15-17 year old female member(s) in their household.

 In Lower Dir, of the 256 respondents of the household survey: o 154 (60%) reported no 15-17 year old female member in their household o 96 (38%) had one or two 15-17 year old female member(s) in their household o 4 had three or more 15-17 year old female members in their household o 2 of the respondents refused to answer this question.

 In Shangla, of the 160 respondents of the household survey: o 127 (79%) reported no 15-17 year old female member in their household o 27 (17%) had one or two 15-17 year old female member(s) in their household o 4 had three or more 15-17 year old female members in their household o 2 of the respondents refused to answer this question.

 In Swat, of the 528 respondents of the household survey: o 369 (70%) reported no 15-17 year old female member in their household o 137 (26%) had one or two 15-17 year old female member(s) in their household o 8 (2%) had three or more 15-17 year old female members in their household o 14 (3%) of the respondents refused to answer this question.

 In Upper Dir, of the 192 respondents of the household survey: o 115 (60%) reported no 15-17 year old female member in their household o 71 (37%) had one or two 15-17 year old female member(s) in their household o 5 (3%) had three or more 15-17 year old female members in their household o 1 of the respondents refused to answer this question.

Table A-3.3. How many 15-17 year old female members do you have in your household? National KPK Chitral Lower Dir Shangla Swat Upper Dir None 25,501 3,820 72 154 127 369 115 1 to 2 Females 8,037 1,660 24 96 27 137 71 3 or More 560 170 - 4 4 8 5 Refused to answer 4,503 651 - 2 2 14 1 Interview Abandoned* 45 1 - - - - - Interview Refused** 58 ------Grand Total 38,704 6,302 96 256 160 528 192 *Respondents who did not complete the survey and abandoned it before answering this question. **Respondents who refused to be interviewed and did not answer any question.

 At the national level, of the 38,704 respondents of the household survey: o 25,501 (66%) reported no 15-17 year old female member in their household o 8,037 (21%) had one or two 15-17 year old female member(s) in their household o 560 (1%) had three or more 15-17 year old female members in their household o 4,503 (12%) refused to answer this question.

Page 18 of 76

Findings of Voters’ List, Delimitation Process and Polling Scheme Assessments of Districts Chitral, Lower Dir, Upper Dir, Shangla and Swat

 In Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, of the 6,302 respondents of the household survey: o 3,820 (61%) reported no 15-17 year old female member in their household o 1,660 (26%) had one or two 15-17 year old female member(s) in their household o 170 (3%) had three or more 15-17 year old female members in their household o 651 (10%) refused to answer this question.

.

Page 19 of 76

Findings of Voters’ List, Delimitation Process and Polling Scheme Assessments of Districts Chitral, Lower Dir, Upper Dir, Shangla and Swat B. Delimitation Process: Awareness, Transparency and Grievance Redress Delimitation of political units is one of the most significant factors in ensuring equitable and just representation of the citizens in elected bodies at all levels. For the process to be fair and legitimate, citizens and other key stakeholders must have the knowledge of not only when the process is being carried out but also how it is being carried out. The redress mechanisms available, if any, for addressing the concerns of the citizens on the content and/or process of delimitation are equally important.

1. Citizens’ knowledge of Delimitation Process B-1.1. Citizens’ Knowledge of Delimitation

To assess the knowledge of key stakeholders about the delimitation process, certain sets of questions were asked from the respondents of the household survey, DECs and DDOs. To start with, the respondents of the household survey were asked if they knew when the delimitation of constituencies was last conducted in their district.

 In Chitral, of the 96 respondents of the household survey: o 63 (66%) reported the delimitation of constituencies before the General Elections as the last in their district o 1 reported the delimitation of constituencies before the Local Government elections as the last in their district o 32 (33%) did not know when was the last delimitation conducted in their district.

 In Lower Dir, of the 256 respondents of the household survey: o 7 (3%) reported the delimitation of constituencies before the Local Government elections as the last in their district o 249 (97%) did not know when was the last delimitation conducted in their district.

 In Shangla, of the 160 respondents of the household survey: o Only 2 reported the delimitation of constituencies before the General Elections as the last in their district o 109 (68%) reported the delimitation of constituencies before the Local Government elections as the last in their district o 49 (31%) did not know when was the last delimitation conducted in their district.

 In Swat, of the 528 respondents of the household survey: o 15 (3%) reported the delimitation of constituencies before the General Elections as the last in their district o 38 (7%) reported the delimitation of constituencies before the Local Government elections as the last in their district o 475 (90%) did not know when was the last delimitation conducted in their district.

 In Upper Dir, of the 192 respondents of the household survey: o 1 reported the delimitation of constituencies before the General Elections as the last in their district o 3 reported the delimitation of constituencies before the Local Government elections as the last in their district o 188 (98%) did not know when was the last delimitation conducted in their district.

Page 20 of 76

Findings of Voters’ List, Delimitation Process and Polling Scheme Assessments of Districts Chitral, Lower Dir, Upper Dir, Shangla and Swat

Table B-1.1. When was delimitation of constituencies last conducted in your district? National KPK Chitral Lower Dir Shangla Swat Upper Dir Before general elections 3,078 422 63 - 2 15 1 Before local government elections 3,225 835 1 7 109 38 3 Don’t Know 32,298 5,044 32 249 49 475 188 Skipped* ------Interview Abandoned** 45 1 - - - - - Interview Refused*** 58 ------Grand Total 38,704 6,302 96 256 160 528 192 *Based on an earlier response, these respondents were not asked this question. **Respondents who did not complete the survey and abandoned it before answering this question. ***Respondents who refused to be interviewed and did not answer any question.

 At the national level, of the 38,704 respondents of the household survey: o 3,078 (8%) reported the delimitation of constituencies had been conducted before the last General elections in their district o 3,225 (8%) reported the delimitation of constituencies had been conducted before the last Local Government elections in their district o 32,298 (83%) did not know when was the last delimitation conducted in their district.

 In Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, of a total of 6,302 respondents of the household survey: o 422 (7%) reported the delimitation of constituencies had been conducted before the last General elections in their district o 835 (13%) reported the delimitation of constituencies had been conducted before the last Local Government elections in their district o 5,044 (80%) did not know when was the last delimitation conducted in their district

Page 21 of 76

Findings of Voters’ List, Delimitation Process and Polling Scheme Assessments of Districts Chitral, Lower Dir, Upper Dir, Shangla and Swat

B-1.2. Citizens’ Knowledge about the Draft Delimitation List

First, the respondents were asked if they knew about the initial delimitation list. Compared to the number of citizens who had knowledge about the last delimitation in their district, the number of citizens with knowledge about the initial delimitation list dropped across all districts.

 In Chitral, of the 96 respondents of the household survey: o Only 4 (4%) reported that they had known about the initial delimitation list

 In Lower , of the 256 respondents of the household survey: o Only 1 reported that he/she had known about the initial delimitation list

 In , of the 160 respondents of the household survey: o Only 2 reported that they had known about the initial delimitation list

 In , of the 528 respondents household survey: o Only 4 reported that they had known about the initial delimitation list

 In , of the 192 respondents of the household survey: o Only 1 reported that they had known about the initial delimitation list

.Table B-1.2. Did you know about the initial delimitation list? National KPK Chitral Lower Dir Shangla Swat Upper Dir Yes 1,215 144 4 1 2 4 1 No 5,051 1,111 60 6 108 49 3 Skipped* 32,298 5,044 32 249 49 475 188 Interview Abandoned** 82 3 - - 1 - - Interview Refused*** 58 ------Grand Total 38,704 6,302 96 256 160 528 192 *Based on an earlier response, these respondents were not asked this question. **Respondents who did not complete the survey and abandoned it before answering this question. ***Respondents who refused to be interviewed and did not answer any question.

 At the national level, of the 38,704 respondents of the household survey: o 1,215 (3%) reported that they had known about the initial delimitation list.

 In Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, of a total of 6,302 households: o 144 (2%) reported that they had known about the initial delimitation list.

Page 22 of 76

Findings of Voters’ List, Delimitation Process and Polling Scheme Assessments of Districts Chitral, Lower Dir, Upper Dir, Shangla and Swat

B-1.3. Display of Delimitation List: DECs Response

To know the efforts being made by the concerned authorities to solicit citizens’ input in the delimitation process, the DECs were asked whether the initial constituency delimitation lists were made available for citizens’ information. The response from the DECs of the under-study districts and from across the province and the country reflects lack of uniformity.

 The DECs in Swat, Shangla, Upper Dir, and Lower Dir reported that the initial list of constituency delimitation had been publicized for citizens’ comments and suggestions.

Table B-1.3. Was the initial list of constituency delimitation publicized for citizens’ comments and suggestions? National KPK Swat Shangla Chitral Upper Dir Lower Dir Yes 75 20 1 1 - 1 1 No 10 ------Don't Know 4 1 - - - - - Skipped* ------Interview Abandoned* 6 3 - - 1 - - Interview Refused** 8 ------Grand Total 103 24 1 1 1 1 1 *Based on an earlier response, these respondents were not asked this question. **Respondents who did not complete the survey and abandoned it before answering this question. ***Respondents who refused to be interviewed and did not answer any question.

 At the national level, of the 103 DECs: o 75 reported that the initial list of constituency delimitation had been publicized for citizens’ comments and suggestions o 10 reported that it had not been publicized o 4 said they did not know if the initial delimitation lists were published for public input.

 In Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, of a total of 24 DECs: o 20 reported that the initial list of constituency delimitation had been publicized for citizens’ comments and suggestions o 1 reported that it had not been publicized.

Page 23 of 76

Findings of Voters’ List, Delimitation Process and Polling Scheme Assessments of Districts Chitral, Lower Dir, Upper Dir, Shangla and Swat

B-1.4. Display of Delimitation List: DDOs Response

Following up on the information provided by the DECs, the DDOs were asked about the publication of the initial delimitation lists in their respective districts. The findings confirm the lack of uniformity in the process.

 In Upper Dir and Lower Dir, the DDOs reported that the initial list of constituency delimitation had not been publicized for citizens’ feedback.  In Swat, Shangla and Chitral, the DDOs reported that the initial list of constituency delimitation had been publicized for citizens’ feedback.

Table B-1.4. Was the initial list of constituency delimitation publicized for citizens’ comments and suggestions? National KPK Swat Shangla Chitral Upper Dir Lower Dir Yes 54 16 1 1 1 - - No 35 7 - - - 1 1 Don't Know 9 2 - - - - - Interview Abandoned* 1 ------Interview Refused** 4 ------Grand Total 103 25 1 1 1 1 1 *Respondents who did not complete the survey and abandoned it before answering this question. **Respondents who refused to be interviewed and did not answer any question.

 At the national level, of the 103 DDOs: o 54 reported that the initial list of constituency delimitation had been publicized for citizens’ comments and suggestions o 35 stated that it had not been publicized o 9 said they did not know if the initial delimitation lists were published for public input.

 In Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, of a total of 25 DDOs: o 16 reported that the initial list of constituency delimitation had been publicized for citizens’ comments and suggestions o 7 reported that it had not been publicized o 2 said they did not know if the initial delimitation lists were published for public input.

Page 24 of 76

Findings of Voters’ List, Delimitation Process and Polling Scheme Assessments of Districts Chitral, Lower Dir, Upper Dir, Shangla and Swat

2. Citizens’ Input in Delimitation Process To know about the participation of the citizens in the delimitation process, a set of questions were asked from the respondents of the household survey, DECs and DDOs. The idea was to determine whether citizens’ opinions, suggestions and objections were considered during the initial listing of constituency delimitations, so as to check the gap between the electoral needs of the citizens and the working of the ECP. B-2.1. Citizens’ Input in Delimitation

Only the respondents of the household survey who had reported to have known about the last delimitation exercise in their district were asked whether they had shared any suggestions on the delimitation process with the officials concerned.

 In Chitral, of a total of 96 respondents of the household survey: o Only 1 reported that he/she had shared suggestions on the delimitation process with the officials concerned.

 In Lower Dir, of a total of 256 respondents of the household survey: o None reported that he/she had shared suggestions on the delimitation process with the officials concerned.

 In Shangla, of a total of 160 respondents of the household survey: o Only 1 reported that he/she had shared suggestions on the delimitation process with the officials concerned

 In Swat, of a total of 528 respondents of the household survey: o Only 1 reported that he/she had shared suggestions on the delimitation process with the officials concerned

 In Upper Dir, of a total of 192 respondents of the household survey o None reported that he/she had shared suggestions on the delimitation process with the officials concerned.

Table B-2.1. Did you share any suggestions on the delimitation process with the officials concerned? National KPK Chitral Lower Dir Shangla Swat Upper Dir Yes 397 50 1 - 1 1 - No 5,869 1,205 63 7 109 52 4 Skipped* 32,298 5,044 32 249 49 475 188 Interview Abandoned** 82 3 - - 1 - - Interview Refused*** 58 ------Grand Total 38,704 6,302 96 256 160 528 192 *Based on an earlier response, these respondents were not asked this question. **Respondents who did not complete the survey and abandoned it before answering this question. ***Respondents who refused to be interviewed and did not answer any question.

 At the national level, of the 38,704 respondents of the household survey: o 397 (1%) reported that they had shared suggestions on the delimitation process with the officials concerned.

 In Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, of a total of 6,302 respondents of the household survey: o 50 (1%) reported that they had shared suggestions on the delimitation process with the officials concerned.

Page 25 of 76

Findings of Voters’ List, Delimitation Process and Polling Scheme Assessments of Districts Chitral, Lower Dir, Upper Dir, Shangla and Swat

B-2.2: Citizens’ Input in Delimitation: DDOs Response

Following up on the household survey respondents’ feedback, the DDOs were asked to confirm whether citizens’ objections/recommendations had reached the officials concerned. The responses across the under-study districts were as follows:

 The DDOs in Lower Dir, reported that citizens had not filed objections/recommendations during the initial listing of constituency delimitations.

 The DDOs in Swat, Shangla, Chitral and Upper Dir reported that citizens had filed objections/recommendations during the initial listing of constituency delimitations.

Table B-2.2. Did citizens file objections/recommendations during the initial listing of constituency delimitations? National KPK Swat Shangla Chitral Upper Dir Lower Dir Yes 44 18 1 1 1 1 - No 54 7 - - - - 1 Interview 1 ------Abandoned** Interview Refused*** 4 ------Grand Total 103 25 1 1 1 1 1 *Based on an earlier response, these respondents were not asked this question. **Respondents who did not complete the survey and abandoned it before answering this question. ***Respondents who refused to be interviewed and did not answer any question.

 At the national level, of the 103 DDOs reached: o 44 reported that citizens had filed objections/recommendations during the initial listing of constituency delimitations o 54 reported that the citizens had not filed objections/recommendations in their district.

 In Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, of the 25 DDOs: o 18 reported that citizens had filed objections/ recommendations during the initial listing of constituency delimitations o 7 reported that the citizens had not filed objections/recommendations in their district.

Page 26 of 76

Findings of Voters’ List, Delimitation Process and Polling Scheme Assessments of Districts Chitral, Lower Dir, Upper Dir, Shangla and Swat

B-2.3. Consideration of Citizens’ Recommendations in Delimitation

In order to assess how much the delimitation process is responsive to public input, the respondents of the household survey who had claimed to have filed their recommendations on delimitation were asked whether any action was taken on their suggestions. The responses varied across the under-study districts.

 In Chitral, of the 96 respondents of the household survey: o Only 1 reported that action had been taken on his/her suggestions regarding the delimitation process.

 In Shangla, of the 160 respondents of the household survey: o Only 1 reported that action had been taken on his/her suggestions regarding the delimitation process.

 In Swat, of the 528 respondents of the household survey: o None had reported that action had been taken on the suggestions regarding the delimitation process.

Table B-2.3. Was any action taken on your suggestions? National KPK Chitral Lower Dir Shangla Swat Upper Dir Yes 159 21 1 - 1 - - No 205 24 - - - 1 - Don’t Know 33 5 - - - - - Skipped* 38,167 6,249 95 256 158 527 192 Interview Abandoned** 82 3 - - 1 - - Interview Refused*** 58 ------Grand Total 38,704 6,302 96 256 160 528 192 *Based on an earlier response, these respondents were not asked this question. **Respondents who did not complete the survey and abandoned it before answering this question. ***Respondents who refused to be interviewed and did not answer any question.

 At the national level, of the 38,704 respondents of the household survey: o 159 reported that action had been taken on their suggestions regarding the delimitation process o The other 205 (1%) who had claimed to have shared their recommendation on delimitation with the concerned officials informed that no action had been taken on their suggestions.

 In Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, of the 6,302 respondents of the household survey: o 21 reported that action had been taken on their suggestions regarding the delimitation process o 24 who had claimed to have shared their recommendation on delimitation with the concerned officials informed that no action had been taken on their suggestions.

Page 27 of 76

Findings of Voters’ List, Delimitation Process and Polling Scheme Assessments of Districts Chitral, Lower Dir, Upper Dir, Shangla and Swat

B-2.4. Consideration of Citizens’ Recommendations in Delimitation: DDOs Response

Following up on the information gathered from the respondents of the household survey, the official position on giving consideration to citizens’ suggestions/recommendations in the delimitation process was probed with the DDOs.

 The DDOs in Swat, Shangla, Chitral and Upper Dir reported that citizens’ suggestions/recommendations had been considered by the delimitation officers.

Table B-2.4. Were citizens’ suggestions/recommendations considered by the delimitation officers? National KPK Swat Shangla Chitral Upper Dir Lower Dir Yes 41 18 1 1 1 1 - No 1 ------Refuse to Answer 2 ------Skipped* 54 7 - - - - 1 Interview Abandoned** 1 ------Interview Refused*** 4 ------Grand Total 103 25 1 1 1 1 1 *Based on an earlier response, these respondents were not asked this question. **Respondents who did not complete the survey and abandoned it before answering this question. ***Respondents who refused to be interviewed and did not answer any question.

 At the national level, of the 103 DDOs:  41 reported that citizens’ suggestions/recommendations had been considered by the delimitation officers  1 stated that they had not been considered.

 In Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, of the 25 DDOs: o 18 reported that citizens’ suggestions/recommendations had been considered by the delimitation officers.

Page 28 of 76

Findings of Voters’ List, Delimitation Process and Polling Scheme Assessments of Districts Chitral, Lower Dir, Upper Dir, Shangla and Swat

B-2.5. Citizens’ Objections on Draft Delimitation List

The respondents of the household survey were also asked whether they had filed any objection on the initial delimitation list. Of the respondents who knew about the delimitation process, a very small section of the sample itself, the number of those answered this question in affirmative was even smaller.

 In Chitral, of the 96 respondents of the household survey: o None had filed any objections on the initial delimitation list.

 In Lower Dir, of the 256 respondents of the household survey: o Only 1 reported that they had filed objections on the initial delimitation lists.

 In Shangla, of the 160 respondents of the household survey: o Only 1 reported that they had filed objections on the initial delimitation lists.

 In Swat, of the 528 respondents of the household survey: o Only 1 reported that they had filed objections on the initial delimitation lists.

 In Upper Dir, of the 192 respondents of the household survey: o None had filed any objections on the initial delimitation list.

Table B-2.5. Did you file any objection on the initial delimitation list? National KPK Chitral Lower Dir Shangla Swat Upper Dir Yes 184 24 - - 1 1 - No 1,031 120 4 1 1 3 1 Skipped* 32,298 5,044 32 249 49 475 188 Interview Abandoned** 5,133 1,114 60 6 109 49 3 Interview Refused*** 58 ------Grand Total 38,704 6,302 96 256 160 528 192 *Based on an earlier response, these respondents were not asked this question. **Respondents who did not complete the survey and abandoned it before answering this question. ***Respondents who refused to be interviewed and did not answer any question.

 At the national level, of the 38,704 respondents of the household survey: o Only 184 reported that they had filed objections on the initial delimitation lists.

 In Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, of the 6,302 respondents of the household survey: o Only 24 reported that they had filed objections on the initial delimitation lists.

Page 29 of 76

Findings of Voters’ List, Delimitation Process and Polling Scheme Assessments of Districts Chitral, Lower Dir, Upper Dir, Shangla and Swat

B-2.6. Consideration of Citizens’ Objections on Draft Delimitation List: DDOs Response

Following up on the information gathered from the respondents of the household survey, the DDOs were asked whether delimitation officials considered citizens’ suggestions/recommendations after the initial listing of constituency delimitations. Their responses varied across the under-study districts.

 The DDOs in Swat, Shangla, Chitral and Upper Dir, reported that citizens’ suggestions/recommendations had been considered after the initial listing of constituency delimitations

 The DDO in Lower Dir reported that citizens’ suggestions/recommendations had not been considered after the initial listing of constituency delimitations.

Table B-2.6. Were citizens’ objections considered after the initial listing of constituency delimitations? National KPK Swat Shangla Chitral Upper Dir Lower Dir Yes 70 21 1 1 1 1 - No 14 2 - - - - 1 Don't Know 14 2 - - - - - Interview Abandoned* 1 ------Interview Refused** 4 ------Grand Total 103 25 1 1 1 1 1 *Respondents who did not complete the survey and abandoned it before answering this question. **Respondents who refused to be interviewed and did not answer any question.

 At the national level, of the 103 DDOs: o 70 reported that citizens’ suggestions/recommendations had been considered after the initial listing of constituency delimitations o 14 reported that citizens’ suggestions/recommendations had not been considered o 14 of the respondents said they did not know whether citizens’ suggestions/recommendations were considered or not.

 In Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, of the 25 DDOs: o 21 reported that citizens’ suggestions/recommendations had been considered after the initial listing of constituency delimitations o 2 reported that citizens’ suggestions/recommendations had not been considered o 2 of the respondents said they did not know whether citizens’ suggestions/recommendations were considered or not.

Page 30 of 76

Findings of Voters’ List, Delimitation Process and Polling Scheme Assessments of Districts Chitral, Lower Dir, Upper Dir, Shangla and Swat

B-2.7. Acceptance of Citizens’ Objections on Draft Delimitation List

It is important that delimitation officials give consideration to citizens’ objections/recommendations on the initial delimitation lists, but it is equally significant to know whether they accepted any of those. The household survey respondents who had reported to have filed objections/recommendations on the initial delimitation lists were asked about the fate of their input.

 In Shangla, of the 160 respondents of the household survey:

o Recommendations of the only 1 who had reported to have filed objections and recommendations on the initial delimitation list were accepted.

 In Swat, of the 528 respondents of the household survey:

o Recommendations of the only 1 who had reported to have filed objections and recommendations on the initial delimitation list were accepted.

Table B-2.7. Were any of your objections/recommendations accepted by delimitation officials? National KPK Chitral Lower Dir Shangla Swat Upper Dir Yes 103 13 - - 1 1 - No 59 7 - - - - - Don’t Know 22 4 - - - - - Skipped* 32,298 5,044 32 249 49 475 188 Interview Abandoned** 6,164 1,234 64 7 110 52 4 Interview Refused*** 58 ------Grand Total 38,704 6,302 96 256 160 528 192 *Based on an earlier response, these respondents were not asked this question. **Respondents who did not complete the survey and abandoned it before answering this question. ***Respondents who refused to be interviewed and did not answer any question.

 At the national level, of the 38,704 respondents of the household survey: o Only 103 reported that their objections/recommendations had been accepted by delimitation officials o The other 59 who had filed objections stated that their objections/recommendations had not been accepted.

 In Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, of the 6,302 respondents of the household survey: o 13 reported that their objections/recommendations had been accepted by delimitation officials o The other 7 who had filed objections stated that their objections/recommendations had not been accepted.

Page 31 of 76

Findings of Voters’ List, Delimitation Process and Polling Scheme Assessments of Districts Chitral, Lower Dir, Upper Dir, Shangla and Swat

3. Political Parties’ Input in Delimitation Process B-3.1. Nomination of District Delimitation Officers

The following questions were asked to determine the level and scope of the engagement of political parties by the ECP. The DECs of the under-study districts were asked who nominated the delimitation officers in their district.

 The DECs of Swat and Lower Dir reported that the delimitation officer had been nominated by an authority other than those mentioned in the list.

 In Shangla, the DEC reported that the Provincial Election Commissioner had nominated the delimitation officers for the last delimitation in his district.

 In Upper Dir, the DEC reported that the ECP had nominated the delimitation officers for the last delimitation in his district.

Table B-3.1. Who nominated the delimitation officers for the last delimitation in your district? National KPK Swat Shangla Chitral Upper Dir Lower Dir ECP 55 9 - - - 1 - Provincial election commissioner 13 4 - 1 - - - Regional election commissioner 1 ------District election commissioner 7 1 - - - - - Any Other 10 7 1 - - - 1 Don't Know 3 ------Interview Abandoned* 6 3 - - 1 - - Interview Refused** 8 ------Grand Total 103 24 1 1 1 1 1 *Respondents who did not complete the survey and abandoned it before answering this question. **Respondents who refused to be interviewed and did not answer any question.

 At the national level, of the 103 DECs: o 55 said the ECP had nominated the delimitation officers for the last delimitation in their district o 13 named the Provincial Election Commissioner as the nominating authority o 7 identified the District Election Commissioner as the nominating authority o 1 reported the Regional Election Commissioner as the nominating authority o 10 mentioned non-ECP officials as the nominating authority o 3 expressed their lack of knowledge about the appointing authority of the delimitation officers in their districts.

 In Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, of the 24 DECs: o 9 said the ECP had nominated the delimitation officers for the last delimitation in their district o 4 named the Provincial Election Commissioner as the nominating authority o 1 identified the District Election Commissioner as the nominating authority o 7 mentioned non-ECP officials as the nominating authority.

Page 32 of 76

Findings of Voters’ List, Delimitation Process and Polling Scheme Assessments of Districts Chitral, Lower Dir, Upper Dir, Shangla and Swat

B-3.2. Political Parties’ Objections on Nominated Delimitation Officers

To ascertain the confidence of the political parties in the officials’ appointed for the delimitation exercise, their representatives were asked if they had raised any objection on the appointment of the delimitation officers. The responses across the under-study districts on the appointment of the delimitation officers were as follows:

 In Swat, of the 5 district level political party leaders: o 1 reported that his/her party had raised objections on the appointment of the delimitation officers o 3 stated that their party had not raised any objection.

 In Shangla, of the 5 district level political party leaders: o 4 reported that their party had not raised objections on the appointment of the delimitation officers.

 In Chitral, of the 5 district level political party leaders: o All reported that their party had not raised objections on the appointment of the delimitation officers.

 In Upper Dir, of the 5 district level political party leaders: o 3 reported that their party had raised objections on the appointment of the delimitation officers o 2 stated that their party had not raised any objection.

 In Lower Dir, of the 5 district level political party leaders: o 3 reported that their party had raised objections on the appointment of the delimitation officers o 2 stated that their party had not raised any objection.

Table B-3.2. Did your party raise any objections on the appointment of delimitation officers? National KPK Swat Shangla Chitral Upper Dir Lower Dir Yes 128 30 1 - - 3 3 No 355 79 3 4 5 2 2 Skipped* 39 16 1 1 - - - Grand Total 522 125 5 5 5 5 5 *Based on an earlier response, these respondents were not asked this question.  At the national level, of the 522 district level political party leaders: o 128 reported that their party had raised objections on the appointment of some delimitation officers o 355 stated that their party had not raised any objection on any of the appointed delimitation officers.

 In Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, of the 125 respondents: o 30 reported that their party had raised objections on the appointment of the delimitation officers o 79 stated that their party had not raised any objection on any of the appointed delimitation officers.

Page 33 of 76

Findings of Voters’ List, Delimitation Process and Polling Scheme Assessments of Districts Chitral, Lower Dir, Upper Dir, Shangla and Swat

B-3.3. Remedial Action on Political Parties’ Objections on Nominated Delimitation Officers

To assess the capacity of the system to address the objections of the political parties, their district-level representatives were asked whether action was taken on any of their party’s objections on the appointed polling staff.

 In Swat, of the 5 district-level political party leaders: o The 1 who had reported to have raised objections on the appointment of delimitation officers also informed that no action was taken on their objections.

 In Upper Dir, of the 5 district-level political party leaders: o The 3 who had reported to have raised objections on the appointment of delimitation officers 2 informed that no action was taken on their objections o The other 1 stated that action had been taken on 1 to 5 of his party’s objections.

 In Lower Dir, of the 5 district-level political party leaders: o The 3 who had reported to have raised objections on the appointment of delimitation officers, 2 informed that no action was taken on their objections o The other 1 stated that he/she did not know whether action had been taken on his party’s objections or not.

Table B-3.3. If yes, action on how many of your party’s objections was taken? National KPK Swat Shangla Chitral Upper Dir Lower Dir None 102 20 1 - - 2 2 1 to 5 Objections 14 6 - - - 1 - 6 to 10 Objections 2 ------15 + Objections 4 ------Don’t Know 6 4 - - - - 1 Skipped* 394 95 4 5 5 2 2 Grand Total 522 125 5 5 5 5 5 *Based on an earlier response, these respondents were not asked this question.

 At the national level, of the 522 district level political party leaders: o 102 informed that no action on their party’s objections were taken o 14 reported that action had been taken on 1 to 5 of their party’s objections o 2 informed that action had been taken on 6 to 10 of their party’ objections o 4 stated that action had been taken on more than 15 of their party’s objections.

 In Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, of the 125 district-level political party leaders: o 20 informed that no action on their party’s objections were taken o 6 reported that action had been taken on 1 to 5 of their party’s objections.

Page 34 of 76

Findings of Voters’ List, Delimitation Process and Polling Scheme Assessments of Districts Chitral, Lower Dir, Upper Dir, Shangla and Swat

B-3.4. Political Parties’ Objections on Delimitation Officers: DECs Response

As the principal ECP representatives at the district level, the DECs were inquired if they knew about objections on the appointment of delimitation officers in their respective district. The responses varied across the under-study districts.

 The DECs in Swat, Shangla, Upper Dir and Lower Dir reported that no objections were raised on the appointed delimitation officers in their district.

Table B-3.4. Were there any objections on the appointment of delimitation officers? National KPK Swat Shangla Chitral Upper Dir Lower Dir Yes 5 1 - - - - - No 76 17 1 1 - 1 1 Don't Know 4 3 - - - - - Skipped* 4 ------Interview Abandoned** 6 3 - - 1 - - Interview Refused*** 8 ------Grand Total 103 24 1 1 1 1 1 *Based on an earlier response, these respondents were not asked this question. **Respondents who did not complete the survey and abandoned it before answering this question. ***Respondents who refused to be interviewed and did not answer any question.

 At the national level, of the 103 DECs: o 5 reported that objections had been raised on the appointment of the delimitation officers o 76 stated that no objections had been raised o 4 did not know about any objection.

 In Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, of the 24 DECs: o 1 reported that objections had been raised on the appointment of the delimitation officers o 17 stated that no objection had been raised o 3 did not know about any objection.

Page 35 of 76

Findings of Voters’ List, Delimitation Process and Polling Scheme Assessments of Districts Chitral, Lower Dir, Upper Dir, Shangla and Swat

B-3.5. Political Parties’ Recommendations during Initial Delimitation List: DDOs Response

To determine whether the political parties were actively pursuing their objections on the delimitation process, the DDOs were asked about the same. The responses varied across under-study districts.

 The DDOs in Shangla, Chitral and Upper Dir reported that political parties had shared their recommendations at the time of delimitation of constituencies during the last elections.

 The DDOs in Swat and Lower Dir reported that no political party had shared their recommendations at the time of delimitation of constituencies during the last elections.

Table B-3.5. Did any political party contact you to raise objections at the time of delimitation of constituencies during the last elections? Nation Shang Chitr Upper Lower KPK Swat al la al Dir Dir Yes 50 14 - 1 1 1 - No 48 11 1 - - - 1 Interview Abandoned* 1 ------Interview Refused** 4 ------Grand Total 103 25 1 1 1 1 1 *Respondents who did not complete the survey and abandoned before answering this question **Respondents who refused to be interviewed and did not answer any question

 At the national level, of the 103 DDOs: o 50 reported that one or more political parties had contacted them to raise objections at the time of delimitation of constituencies during the last elections o 48 reported that no political party had contacted them to raise objection on the delimitation.

 In Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, of the 25 DDOs: o 14 reported that one or more political parties had contacted them to raise objections at the time of delimitation of constituencies during the last elections o 11 reported that no political party had contacted them to raise objection on the delimitation.

Page 36 of 76

Findings of Voters’ List, Delimitation Process and Polling Scheme Assessments of Districts Chitral, Lower Dir, Upper Dir, Shangla and Swat

B-3.6. Remedial Action on Political Parties’ Recommendations on Initial Delimitation List

The capacity of the delimitation authority to process the objections raised by the political parties was determined through follow- up question from the DDOs. They were asked whether any action was taken on the objections raised by the political parties.

 In Shangla, Chitral and Upper Dir, the DDOs reported that action had been taken on the recommendations by the political parties.

Table B-3.6. Was any action taken on the recommendations by political parties? National KPK Swat Shangla Chitral Upper Dir Lower Dir Yes 46 13 - 1 1 1 - No 2 ------Don't Know 2 1 - - - - - Skipped* 48 11 1 - - - 1 Interview Abandoned** 1 ------Interview Refused*** 4 ------Grand Total 103 25 1 1 1 1 1 *Based on an earlier response, these respondents were not asked this question. **Respondents who did not complete the survey and abandoned it before answering this question. ***Respondents who refused to be interviewed and did not answer any question

 At the national level, of the 103 DDOs: o 46 reported that some action had been taken on the objections submitted by the political parties o The other 2 stated that no action had been taken.

 In Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, of the 25 DDOs: o 13 reported that some action had been taken on the objections submitted by the political parties.

Page 37 of 76

Findings of Voters’ List, Delimitation Process and Polling Scheme Assessments of Districts Chitral, Lower Dir, Upper Dir, Shangla and Swat

4. Delimitation: Dispute Settlement Mechanism Following the initial delimitation listing, the delimitation authority established by the ECP provides the citizens with an opportunity to submit their recommendations/objections. B-4.1. Political Parties’ Objections/Recommendations to Delimitation Authority

The district-level political party leaders in the under-study districts were asked whether their party submitted any recommendation/objection to the delimitation authority on the initial constituency delimitations.

 In Swat, of the 5 district-level political party leaders: o 4 reported that their party had submitted recommendations/objections on the initial delimitation list to the delimitation authority o 1 stated that their party had not submitted any recommendation/objection.

 In Shangla, of the 5 district-level political party leaders: o 2 reported that their party had submitted recommendations/objections on the initial delimitation list to the delimitation authority o 3 stated that their party had not submitted any recommendation/objection.

 In Chitral, of the 5 district-level political party leaders: o 2 reported that their party had submitted recommendations/objections on the initial delimitation list to the delimitation authority o 3 stated that their party had not submitted any recommendation/objection.

 In Upper Dir, of the 5 district-level political party leaders: o 3 reported that their party had submitted recommendations/objections on the initial delimitation list to the delimitation authority o 2 stated that their party had not submitted any recommendation/objection.

 In Lower Dir, of the 5 district-level political party leaders: o 3 reported that their party had submitted recommendations/objections on the initial delimitation list to the delimitation authority o 2 stated that their party had not submitted any recommendation/objection.

Table B-4.1. Did your party submit any recommendation/objection on the initial delimitation list to the delimitation authority? National KPK Swat Shangla Chitral Upper Dir Lower Dir Yes 235 49 4 2 2 3 3 No 287 76 1 3 3 2 2 Grand Total 522 125 5 5 5 5 5

 At the national level, of the 522 district level political party leaders: o 235 reported that their party had submitted recommendations/objections on the initial delimitation list to the delimitation authority o 287 stated that their party had not submitted any recommendation/objection.

 In Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, of the 125 district-level political party leaders: o 49 reported that their party had filed one or more recommendations/objections to the delimitation authority at the time of the initial constituency delimitations o 76 reported that their party had not filed any recommendation/objection at the time.

Page 38 of 76

Findings of Voters’ List, Delimitation Process and Polling Scheme Assessments of Districts Chitral, Lower Dir, Upper Dir, Shangla and Swat

B-4.2. Political Parties’ Objections with Delimitation Authority: DDOs Response

Following up on the information provided by the political party leaders, the DDOs of the under-study districts were asked whether any objections were recorded by the delimitation authority about the constituencies delimited by them. The responses varied across the under-study districts.

 The DDOs in Shangla, Chitral and Upper Dir acknowledged that objections had been registered with the delimitation authority about the constituencies delimited by them.

 The DDO in Lower Dir claimed that no objections had been registered with the delimitation authority about the constituencies delimited by him.

 The DDO in Swat said he/she did not know if any objection was registered with the delimitation authority.

Table B-4.2. Do you know if any objections were registered with the Delimitation Authority about the constituencies delimited by you? National KPK Swat Shangla Chitral Upper Dir Lower Dir Yes 59 15 - 1 1 1 - No 25 5 - - - - 1 Don't Know 14 5 1 - - - - Interview Abandoned* 1 ------Interview Refused** 4 ------Grand Total 103 25 1 1 1 1 1 *Respondents who did not complete the survey and abandoned it before answering this question. **Respondents who refused to be interviewed and did not answer any question.

 At the national level, of the 103 DDOs: o 59 reported that objections had been registered with the delimitation authority about the constituencies delimited by them o 25 reported that no objection had been registered o 14 of the DDOs said they did not know if any objection was registered with the delimitation authority.

 In Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, of the 25 DDOs: o 15 reported that objections had been registered with the delimitation authority about the constituencies delimited by them o 5 reported that no objection had been registered o 5 DDOs said they did not know if any objection was registered with the delimitation authority.

Page 39 of 76

Findings of Voters’ List, Delimitation Process and Polling Scheme Assessments of Districts Chitral, Lower Dir, Upper Dir, Shangla and Swat

B-4.3. Scale of Objections Filed with Delimitation Authority

The DDOs who had stated that one or more objections were registered with the delimitation authority about the constituencies delimited by them were next asked about the number of such objections.

 In Shangla, the DDO reported that more than 10 objections had been registered with the delimitation authority about the constituencies delimited by him.

 In Chitral, the DDO reported that 1 to 5 objections were registered with the Delimitation Authority about the constituencies delimited by him.

 In Upper Dir, the DDO reported that 6 to 10 objections were registered with the Delimitation Authority about the constituencies delimited by him.

Table B-4.3. If yes, how many objections were registered with the delimitation authority? National KPK Swat Shangla Chitral Upper Dir Lower Dir 1 to 5 Objections 7 3 - - 1 - - 6 to 10 Objections 2 2 - - - 1 - 10 + Objections 36 9 - 1 - - - Don't Know 14 1 - - - - - Interview Abandoned* 40 10 1 - - - 1 Interview Refused** 4 ------Grand Total 103 25 1 1 1 1 1 *Respondents who did not complete the survey and abandoned it before answering this question. **Respondents who refused to be interviewed and did not answer any question.

 At the national level, of the 103 DDOs: o 7 reported that 1 to 5 objections had been registered with the delimitation authority about the constituencies delimited by them o 2 stated that 6 to 10 objections had been registered o 36 informed that more than 10 objections had been registered o 14 had no information about the number of objections registered with the delimitation authority.

 In Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, of the 25 DDOs: o 3 reported that 1 to 5 objections had been registered with the delimitation authority about the constituencies delimited by him o 2 stated that 6 to 10 objections had been registered o 9 informed that more than 10 objections had been registered o 1 had no information about the number of objections registered with the delimitation authority.

Page 40 of 76

Findings of Voters’ List, Delimitation Process and Polling Scheme Assessments of Districts Chitral, Lower Dir, Upper Dir, Shangla and Swat

B-4.4. Political Parties’ Objections with Delimitation Authority: DECs Response

Following up on the official position of the DDOs regarding the submission of objections on the initial delimitation lists to the delimitation authority, the DECs were also asked about the number of objections submitted to the delimitation authority in their district.

 The DECs in Swat, Shangla, and Upper Dir & Lower Dir said they did not know if any objection had been registered with the delimitation authority in their district.

Table B-4.4. How many complaints/objections were submitted to delimitation authority in your district? National KPK Swat Shangla Chitral Upper Dir Lower Dir None 2 ------1 to 5 Objections 1 1 - - - - - 6 to 10 Objections 2 1 - - - - - 11 to 15 Objections 2 ------15 + Objections 40 1 - - - - - Don't Know 40 18 1 1 - 1 1 Interview Abandoned* 8 3 - - 1 - - Interview Refused** 8 ------Grand Total 103 24 1 1 1 1 1 *Respondents who did not complete the survey and abandoned it before answering this question. **Respondents who refused to be interviewed and did not answer any question.

 At the national level, of the 103 DECs: o 40 reported that more than 15 objections had been submitted to the delimitation authority in their district o 1 informed that 1 to 5 objections had been submitted with the delimitation authority o 2 stated that 6 to 10 had been submitted with the delimitation authority o 2 stated that 11 to 15 objections had been submitted with the delimitation authority o 2 reported that no objection had been submitted with the delimitation authority o 40 did not know about the number of objections filed with the delimitation authority in their district.

 In Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, of the 24 DECs: o 1 informed that 1 to 5 objections had been submitted with the delimitation authority o 1 stated that 6 to 10 had been submitted with the delimitation authority o 1 reported that more than 15 objections had been submitted to the delimitation authority in their district o 18 did not know about the number of objections filed with the delimitation authority in their district.

Page 41 of 76

Findings of Voters’ List, Delimitation Process and Polling Scheme Assessments of Districts Chitral, Lower Dir, Upper Dir, Shangla and Swat

B-4.5. Approval for Hearing of Political Parties’ Objections by the Delimitation Authority

In order to assess the follow-up action by the delimitation authority to address the objections on the initial delimitation lists, the district-level representatives of the political parties were asked about the number of their party’s objections that were approved for hearing/processing.

 In Swat of the 5 district level political leaders: o 2 reported that none of the objections of their party were approved for hearing o 2 reported that 1 to 5 objections of their party were approved for hearing.

 In Shangla of the 5 district level political leaders: o 1 reported that 1 to 5 objections of his party were approved for hearing.

 In Chitral, of the 5 district level political leaders: o 2 did not know whether any of their party’s objections were approved for hearing.

 In Upper Dir, of the 5 district level political leaders: o 1 reported that 1 to 5 objections of his party were approved for hearing. o 2 did not know whether any of their party’s objections were approved for hearing.

 In Lower Dir, of the 5 district level political leaders: o 3 did not know whether any of their party’s objections were approved for hearing.

Table B-4.5. How many of your party’s objections were approved for hearing/ processing? National KPK Swat Shangla Chitral Upper Dir Lower Dir None 18 4 2 - - - - 1 to 5 Objections 51 16 2 1 - 1 - 6 to 10 Objections 12 3 - - - - - 11 to 15 Objections 5 ------15 + Objections 20 2 - - - - - Don’t Know 129 24 - 1 2 2 3 Skipped* 287 76 1 3 3 2 2 Grand Total 522 125 5 5 5 5 5 *Based on an earlier response, these respondents were not asked this question.

 At the national level, of the 522 district-level political party leaders: o 51 reported that 1 to 5 objections of their party had been approved for hearing/processing by the delimitation authority o 20 stated that more than 15 had been approved o 12 informed that 6 to 10 had been approved o 5 reported that 11 to 15 had been approved o 18 stated that none had been approved o 129 did not know whether any of their party’s objections were approved for hearing.

 In Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, of the 125 district-level political leaders: o 16 reported that 1 to 5 objections of their party had been approved for hearing/processing by the delimitation authority o 3 informed that 6 to 10 had been approved o 2 stated that more than 15 had been approved o 24 did not know whether any of their party’s objections were approved for hearing.

Page 42 of 76

Findings of Voters’ List, Delimitation Process and Polling Scheme Assessments of Districts Chitral, Lower Dir, Upper Dir, Shangla and Swat

B-4.6. Acceptance of Political Parties’ Objections by the Delimitation Authority: DDOs Response

To confirm the information from the political parties, the question was also repeated to record the official position of the DDOs. The responses for the districts under-study as well as all DDOs interviewed in the province and across the country is as follows:

 At district level, the DDO of Shangla reported that more than 10 objections were accepted by the Delimitation Authority.

 At district level, the DDOs of Chitral and Upper Dir reported that 1 to 5 objections were accepted by the Delimitation Authority.

Table B-4.6. How many of the registered objections were accepted by the delimitation authority? National KPK Swat Shangla Chitral Upper Dir Lower Dir None 1 ------1 to 5 Objections 7 2 - - 1 1 - 6 to 10 Objections 2 2 - - - - - 10 + Objections 34 9 - 1 - - - Don't Know 1 1 - - - - - Interview Abandoned 54 11 1 - - - 1 Interview Refused 4 ------Grand Total 103 25 1 1 1 1 1 *Respondents who did not complete the survey and abandoned before answering this question **Respondents who refused to be interviewed and did not answer any question

 At the national level, of the 103 DDOs: o 34 reported that more than 10 of the registered objections had been accepted by the delimitation authority o 7 reported that 1 to 5 objections had been accepted o 2 reported that 6 to 10 objections had been accepted o 1 reported that none of the objections had been accepted.

 In Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, of the 25 DDOs: o 9 reported that more than 10 of the registered objections had been accepted by the delimitation authority o 2 reported that 1 to 5 of the registered objections had been accepted by the delimitation authority o 2 reported that 6 to 10 objections had been accepted.

Page 43 of 76

Findings of Voters’ List, Delimitation Process and Polling Scheme Assessments of Districts Chitral, Lower Dir, Upper Dir, Shangla and Swat

B-4.7. Acceptance of Political Parties’ Objections by the Delimitation Authority: DECs Response

The District Election Commissioners (DECs) of the under-study districts were asked that how many objections filed were approved for hearing. A significant number of DECs were not able/willing to share the required information.

The DECs of the all under-study district were among those who did not share such information and abandoned the interview.

Table B-4.7. How many of the submitted objections were approved for hearing/processing? National KPK Swat Shangla Chitral Upper Dir Lower Dir None 2 ------1 to 5 Objections 3 1 - - - - - 6 to 10 Objections 4 1 - - - - - 11 to 15 Objections 5 ------15 + Objections 31 1 - - - - - Don't Know 2 ------Interview Abandoned* 48 21 1 1 1 1 1 Interview Refused** 8 ------Grand Total 103 24 1 1 1 1 1 *Respondents who did not complete the survey and abandoned before answering this question **Respondents who refused to be interviewed and did not answer any question

 At the national level, of the 103 DECs: o 31 reported that more than 15 of the submitted objections had been approved for hearing/processing o 5 reported that 11 to 15 objections had been approved o 4 reported that 6 to 10 objections had been approved o 3 reported that 1 to 5 objections had been approved o 2 reported that none had been approved.

 In Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, of the 24 DECs: o 1 reported that 1 to 5 objections had been approved for hearing/processing o 1 reported that 6 to 10 objections had been approved o 1 reported that more than 15 of the submitted objections had been approved.

Page 44 of 76

Findings of Voters’ List, Delimitation Process and Polling Scheme Assessments of Districts Chitral, Lower Dir, Upper Dir, Shangla and Swat

B-4.8. Political Parties’ Satisfaction with Dispute Settlement Mechanism

It was asked from the district-level leadership of political parties if their parties were satisfied with the mechanism adopted for resolving recommendations/ objections. The responses in the target-districts were as follows:

 In Swat, of a total of 5 district-level political party leaders: o 1 reported that their party was satisfied with the mechanism adopted for addressing recommendations/objections o 3 reported that their party was not satisfied with the mechanism adopted for addressing recommendations/objections.

 In Shangla, of a total of 5 district-level political party leaders: o The 2 who had filed objections reported that their party was not satisfied with the mechanism adopted for addressing recommendations/objections.

 In Chitral, of a total of 5 district-level political party leaders: o The 2 who claimed to have filed objections reported that their party was satisfied with the mechanism adopted for addressing recommendations/objections.

 In Upper Dir, of a total of 5 district-level political party leaders: o All 3 claiming to have filed objections reported that their party was not satisfied with the mechanism adopted for addressing recommendations/objections.

 In Lower Dir of a total of 5 district-level political party leaders: o 2 reported that their party was satisfied with the mechanism adopted for addressing recommendations/objections o 1 reported that his/her party was not satisfied with the mechanism adopted for addressing recommendations/objections.

Table B-4.8. Was your party satisfied with the mechanism adopted for addressing recommendations/ objections? National KPK Swat Shangla Chitral Upper Dir Lower Dir Yes 63 13 1 - 2 - 2 No 172 36 3 2 - 3 1 Skipped* 287 76 1 3 3 2 2 Grand Total 522 125 5 5 5 5 5 *Based on an earlier response, these respondents were not asked this question.

 At the national level, of the 522 district-level political party leaders: o 172 said their party had not been satisfied with the mechanism adopted for addressing recommendations/objections o The other 63 who had filed their objections with the delimitation authority reported that their party had been satisfied with the mechanism.

 In Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, of the 125 district-level political party leaders: o 36 said their party had not been satisfied with the mechanism adopted for addressing recommendations/objections o The other 13 who had filed their objections with the delimitation authority reported that their party had been satisfied with the mechanism.

Page 45 of 76

Findings of Voters’ List, Delimitation Process and Polling Scheme Assessments of Districts Chitral, Lower Dir, Upper Dir, Shangla and Swat

B-4.9. Political Parties’ Perception of Delimitation Authority’s Neutrality

It was asked from the district-level political parties that in their opinion, was the Delimitation Authority neutral in its proceedings and decisions. The responses of the political parties were as follows:

 In Swat, of the 5 district-level political party leaders: o 2 reported that the delimitation authority was not impartial in its proceedings and decisions.

 In Shangla, of the 5 district-level political party leaders: o 1 reported that the delimitation authority was not impartial in its proceedings and decisions.

 In Upper Dir, of the 5 district-level political party leaders: o 3 reported that the delimitation authority was not impartial in its proceedings and decisions.

 In Lower Dir, of the 5 district-level political party leaders: o 1 reported that the delimitation authority was not impartial in its proceedings and decisions.

Table B-4.9. In your opinion, was the delimitation authority impartial in its proceedings and decisions? National KPK Swat Shangla Chitral Upper Dir Lower Dir Yes 43 11 - 1 - - - No 123 23 2 1 - 3 1 Don't Know 6 2 1 - - - - Skipped* 350 89 2 3 5 2 4 Grand Total 522 125 5 5 5 5 5 *Based on an earlier response, these respondents were not asked this question.

 At the national level, of the 522 district-level political party leaders: o 123 reported that in their opinion, the delimitation authority was not neutral in its proceedings and decisions o The other 43 who had interacted with the delimitation authority reported that in their opinion, the delimitation authority had been impartial.

 In Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, of the 125 district-level political party leaders: o 23 reported that in their opinion, the delimitation authority was not neutral in its proceedings and decisions o The other 11 who had interacted with the delimitation authority reported that in their opinion, the delimitation authority had been impartial.

Page 46 of 76

Findings of Voters’ List, Delimitation Process and Polling Scheme Assessments of Districts Chitral, Lower Dir, Upper Dir, Shangla and Swat C. Polling Scheme: Awareness, Transparency and Grievance Redress Among the most contested and critical aspects of the election administration is assigning of polling stations to geographic blocs of communities in such a way that it does not impede or unduly hinder the citizens from exercising their right to vote. Multiple factors ranging from proximity of a community to its assigned polling station to neutrality of the premises and inter-communal discord are to be considered to avoid any untoward incidence that may hamper the citizens’ ability and desire to turn out for vote. Citizens’ knowledge and understanding of, and participation in, the process of polling scheme formulation is therefore crucial to smooth election-day activities.

1. Citizens’ knowledge of Polling Scheme C-1.1. Authority Responsible for Drafting Initial Polling Stations’ List

Prior to assessing public knowledge of the polling scheme formulation, the DECs were asked that who led the process of drafting the initial list of polling stations in the last elections held in their district.

 The DECs in all the understudy districts - Swat, Shangla, Chitral, Upper Dir and Lower Dir - reported that their office had drafted the initial list of polling stations in the last elections held in his district.

Table C-1.1. Who drafted the initial list of polling stations in the last elections held in your district? Nationa KP Swa Shangl Chitra Upper Lower

l K t a l Dir Dir DRO 13 ------RO 33 9 - - - - - DEC 45 15 1 1 1 1 1 Any Other 3 ------Don't Know 1 ------Interview Refused* 8 ------Grand Total 103 24 1 1 1 1 1 *Respondents who refused to be interviewed and did not answer any question.

 At the national level, of the 103 DECs: o 45 reported that the District Election Commissioner had drafted the initial list of polling stations in the last elections held in their district o 33 stated that the Returning Officer had drafted the initial list of polling stations in the last elections held in their district o 13 informed that the District Returning Officer had drafted the initial list of polling stations in the last elections held in their district.

 In Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, of the 24 DECs: o 15 reported that the District Election Commissioner had drafted the initial list of polling stations in the last elections held in their district o 9 informed that the Returning Officer had drafted the initial list of polling stations in the last elections held in their district.

Page 47 of 76

Findings of Voters’ List, Delimitation Process and Polling Scheme Assessments of Districts Chitral, Lower Dir, Upper Dir, Shangla and Swat

C-1.2. Initial Polling Scheme: Consultation with Communities

The respondents of the household survey were asked whether the voters in their area were consulted before the assignment of polling stations to them. An overwhelming majority of the respondents at the national and provincial level replied in the negative.

 In Chitral, of 96 respondents of the household survey: o 93 (97%) reported that voters in their area had not been consulted before polling stations were assigned to them o 3 (3%) reported that the voters in their area had been consulted.

 In Lower Dir, of 252 respondents of the household survey: o 240 (94%) reported that voters in their area had not been consulted before polling stations were assigned to them o 1 reported that the voters in their area had been consulted.

 In Shangla, of 159 respondents of the household survey: o 157(98%) reported that the voters in their area had not been consulted before polling stations were assigned to them.

 In Swat, of 517 respondents of the household survey: o 494 (94%) reported that voters in their area had not been consulted before polling stations were assigned to them o 21(4%) reported that voters in their area had been consulted.

 In Upper Dir, of 187 respondents of the household survey: o 161(84%) reported that voters in their area had not been consulted before polling stations were assigned to them o 1 reported that voters in their area had been consulted.

Table C-1.2. Were voters in your area consulted before polling stations were assigned to them? National KPK Chitral Lower Dir Shangla Swat Upper Dir Yes 1,772 302 3 1 - 21 1 No 32,627 5,402 93 240 157 494 161 Don’t Know 2,510 455 - 11 2 2 25 Skipped* 1,696 142 - 4 1 11 5 Interview Abandoned** 41 1 - - - - - Interview Refused*** 58 ------Grand Total 38,704 6,302 96 256 160 528 192 *Based on an earlier response, these respondents were not asked this question. **Respondents who did not complete the survey and abandoned before answering this question. ***Respondents who refused to be interviewed and did not answer any question.

 At the national level, of the 38,704 respondents of the household survey: o 32,627 (84%) – reported that the voters in their area had not been consulted before polling stations were assigned to them o 1,772 (5%) reported that the voters in their area had been consulted.

 In Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, of the 6,302 respondents of the household survey: o 5,402 (86%) reported that the voters in their area had not been consulted before polling stations were assigned to them o 302 (5%) reported that the voters in their area had been consulted.

Page 48 of 76

Findings of Voters’ List, Delimitation Process and Polling Scheme Assessments of Districts Chitral, Lower Dir, Upper Dir, Shangla and Swat

C-1.3. Publication and Display of Draft Polling Scheme: DECs Response

As per the polling scheme formulation process, the initial polling scheme – once drafted – is publicized and made available to the citizens to solicit their input. To determine if this practice was actually followed in each district, the DECs were asked whether the initial polling scheme was publicized in their district to solicit citizens’ input.

 The DECs in Swat, Chitral, Upper Dir and Lower Dir reported that the initial polling scheme had been publicized in their district to solicit citizens’ input.

 In Shangla, the DEC reported that the initial polling scheme had not been publicized in his district to solicit citizens’ input.

Table C-1.3. Was the initial polling scheme publicized in your district to solicit citizens’ input? Nationa KP Swa Shangl Chitra Upper Lower

l K t a l Dir Dir Yes 76 23 1 - 1 1 1 No 16 1 - 1 - - - Don't Know 3 ------Interview Refused* 8 ------Grand Total 103 24 1 1 1 1 1 *Respondents who refused to be interviewed and did not answer any question.

 At the national level, of the 103 DECs: o 76 reported that the initial polling scheme had been publicized in their district to solicit citizens’ input o 16 reported that the initial polling scheme had not been publicized.

 In Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, of the 24 DECs: o 23 reported that the initial polling scheme had been publicized in their district to solicit citizens’ input o Only 1 reported that the initial polling scheme had not been publicized.

Page 49 of 76

Findings of Voters’ List, Delimitation Process and Polling Scheme Assessments of Districts Chitral, Lower Dir, Upper Dir, Shangla and Swat

C-1.4. Publication and Display of Draft Polling Scheme: Political Parties’ Response

Like the DECs, the district-level political party leaders were also asked whether the initial polling scheme was publicized in their district. Interestingly, this question elicited different responses from political party leaders – in some cases, even leaders from the same district.

 In Swat, of the 5 district level political leaders: o All 5 reported that the initial polling scheme had not publicized in their district to solicit citizens’ input.

 In Shangla, of the 5 district level political party leaders: o 4 reported that the initial polling scheme had not been publicized in their district to solicit citizens’ input o 1 reported that the initial polling scheme had not been publicized.

 In Chitral, of the 5 district level political party leaders: o All 5 reported that the initial polling scheme had not been publicized in their district to solicit citizens’ input.

 In Upper Dir, of the 5 district level political party leaders: o All 5 reported that the initial polling scheme had not been publicized in their district to solicit citizens’ input.

 In Lower Dir, of the 5 district level political party leaders: o 3 reported that the initial polling scheme had not been publicized in their district to solicit citizens’ input o 2 reported that the initial polling scheme had been publicized.

Table C-1.4. Was the initial polling scheme publicized in your district to solicit citizens’ input? National KPK Swat Shangla Chitral Upper Dir Lower Dir Yes 80 25 - 1 - - 2 No 430 97 5 4 5 5 3 Don’t Know 12 3 - - - - - Grand Total 522 125 5 5 5 5 5

 At the national level, of the 522 district level political party leaders: o 430 reported that the initial polling scheme had not been publicized in their district to solicit citizens’ input. o 80 reported that the initial polling scheme had been publicized

 In Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, of the 125 district level political party leaders: o 97 reported that the initial polling scheme had not been publicized in their district to solicit citizens’ input o 25 reported that the initial polling scheme had been publicized.

Page 50 of 76

Findings of Voters’ List, Delimitation Process and Polling Scheme Assessments of Districts Chitral, Lower Dir, Upper Dir, Shangla and Swat

C-1.5. Acceptance of Citizen’s Recommendations in Final Polling Scheme

In order to ascertain the fate of citizens’ objection and concerns, the DECs were also asked about the status of citizens’ objections regarding the polling scheme.

 The DECs of all the under-study districts-Swat, Shangla, Chitral, Upper Dir and Lower Dir claimed that citizen’s objections had been addressed in the final polling scheme.

Table C-1.5. Were citizens’ recommendations/objections addressed in the final polling scheme? National KPK Swat Shangla Chitral Upper Dir Lower Dir Yes 77 23 1 1 1 1 1 No 11 1 - - - - - Skipped* 7 ------Interview Refused** 8 ------Grand Total 103 24 1 1 1 1 1 *Based on an earlier response, these respondents were not asked this question. **Respondents who refused to be interviewed and did not answer any question.

 At the national level, of the 103 DECs: o 77 reported that citizen’s objections had been addressed in the final polling scheme o 11 reported that citizen’s objections had not been addressed.

 In Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, of the 24 DECs: o 23 reported that citizen’s objections had been addressed in the final polling scheme o 1 reported that citizen’s objections had not been addressed.

Page 51 of 76

Findings of Voters’ List, Delimitation Process and Polling Scheme Assessments of Districts Chitral, Lower Dir, Upper Dir, Shangla and Swat

2. Political Parties’ Input in Polling Scheme Formulation C-2.1. Political Parties/Candidates’ Input in Draft Polling Scheme

To know whether the input of political parties and contesting candidates, the key stakeholders in the electoral process, was sought at the time of developing the initial list of polling stations, district-level political party leaders were asked about the same. The majority of them at the national and provincial level answered in the negative.

 In Swat, of the 5 district level political party leaders: o Only 1 reported that the input of political parties and contesting candidates had been sought at the time of developing the initial list of polling stations o 4 stated that the input of political parties and contesting candidates had not been sought.

 In Shangla, of the 5 district level political party leaders: o 2 reported that the input of political parties and contesting candidates had been sought at the time of developing the initial list of polling stations o 3 stated that the input of political parties and contesting candidates had not been sought.

 In Chitral, of the 5 district level political party leaders: o All 5 reported that the input of political parties and contesting candidates had not been sought at the time of developing the initial list of polling stations.

 In Upper Dir, , of the 5 district level political party leaders: o Only 1 reported that the input of political parties and contesting candidates had been sought at the time of developing the initial list of polling stations o 4 stated that the input of political parties and contesting candidates had not been sought.

 In Lower Dir, of the 5 district level political party leaders: o Only 1 reported that the input of political parties and contesting candidates had been sought at the time of developing the initial list of polling stations o 4 stated that the input of political parties and contesting candidates had not been sought.

Table C-2.1. Was the input of political parties and contesting candidates sought at the time of developing the initial list of polling stations? National KPK Swat Shangla Chitral Upper Dir Lower Dir Yes 81 17 1 2 - 1 1 No 422 105 4 3 5 4 4 Don’t Know 19 3 - - - - - Grand Total 522 125 5 5 5 5 5

 At the national level, of the 522 district level political party leaders: o 81 reported that the input of political parties and contesting candidates had been sought at the time of developing the initial list of polling stations o 422 stated that the input of political parties and contesting candidates had not been sought.

 In Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, of 125 district level political party leaders: o 17 reported that the input of political parties and contesting candidates had been sought at the time of developing the initial list of polling stations o 105 stated that the input of political parties and contesting candidates had not been sought.

Page 52 of 76

Findings of Voters’ List, Delimitation Process and Polling Scheme Assessments of Districts Chitral, Lower Dir, Upper Dir, Shangla and Swat

C-2.2. Political Parties/Candidates’ Input in Draft Polling Scheme: DECs’ Response

When the DECs were asked whether the input of political parties and contesting candidates was sought at the time of developing the initial list of polling stations, the majority of them at the national and provincial level answered in the affirmative.

 The DECs of the all under-study district Swat, Shangla, Chitral, Upper Dir and Lower Dir, reported that the input of political parties and contesting candidates had been sought at the time of developing the initial list of polling stations.

Table C-2.2. Was the input of political parties and contesting candidates sought at the time of developing the initial list of polling stations? National KPK Swat Shangla Chitral Upper Dir Lower Dir Yes 52 17 1 1 1 1 1 No 38 6 - - - - - Don't Know 5 1 - - - - - Interview Refused* 8 ------Grand Total 103 24 1 1 1 1 1 *Respondents who refused to be interviewed and did not answer any question.

 At the national level, of the 103 DECs: o 52 reported that the input of political parties and contesting candidates had been sought at the time of developing the initial list of polling stations o 38 stated that the input of political parties and contesting candidates had not been sought.

 In Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, of the 23 DECs: o 17 reported that the input of political parties and contesting candidates had been sought at the time of developing the initial list of polling stations o 6 stated that the input of political parties and contesting candidates had not been sought.

Page 53 of 76

Findings of Voters’ List, Delimitation Process and Polling Scheme Assessments of Districts Chitral, Lower Dir, Upper Dir, Shangla and Swat

C-2.3. Political Parties’ Objections on Draft Polling Scheme

The window to file objections and seek corrections is available once the initial polling scheme is published. The district-level political party leaders were asked whether they filed any objection on the initial polling scheme.

 In Swat, of the 5 district level political party leaders: o 3 reported that their party had filed at least one objection on the draft polling scheme o 2 stated that his/her party had not filed any objection.

 In Shangla, of the 5 district level political party leaders: o 3 reported that their party had filed at least one objection on the draft polling scheme o 2 stated that their party had not filed any objection.

 In Chitral, of the 5 district level political party leaders: o 2 reported that their party had filed at least one objection on the draft polling scheme o 3 stated that their party had not filed any objection.

 In Upper Dir, of the 5 district level political party leaders: o 4 reported that their party had filed at least one objection on the draft polling scheme o 1 stated that his/her party had not filed any objection.

 In Lower Dir, of the 5 district level political party leaders: o 4 reported that their party had filed at least one objection on the draft polling scheme o 1 did not know whether his/her party has filed any objection on the draft polling scheme.

Table C-2.3. Did your party file any objections on the polling scheme? National KPK Swat Shangla Chitral Upper Dir Lower Dir Yes 284 83 3 3 2 4 4 No 218 39 2 2 3 1 - Don’t Know 20 3 - - - - 1 Grand Total 522 125 5 5 5 5 5

 At the national level, of the 522 district level political party leaders: o 284 reported that their party had filed at least one objection on the draft polling scheme o 218 stated that their party had not filed any objection.

 In Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, of the 125 district level political party leaders: o 83 reported that their party had filed at least one objection on the draft polling scheme o 39 stated that their party had not filed any objection.

C-2.4. Consideration of Political Parties’ Objections on Draft Polling Scheme

To gauge the responsiveness of the system, the district-level political party leaders who had reported that their party raised objections on the initial polling scheme were further probed whether their objections were heard.

Page 54 of 76

Findings of Voters’ List, Delimitation Process and Polling Scheme Assessments of Districts Chitral, Lower Dir, Upper Dir, Shangla and Swat

 In Swat, of the 5 district level political party leaders: o All 3 claiming to have filed objections reported that their party’s objection(s) on the polling scheme had not been heard.

 In Shangla, of the 5 district level political party leaders: o All 3 claiming to have filed objections eported that their party’s objection(s) on the polling scheme had been heard.

 In Chitral, of the 5 district level political party leaders: o Both the leaders claiming to have filed objections reported that their party’s objection(s) on the polling scheme had been heard.

 In Upper Dir, of the 5 district level political party leaders: o 1 reported that their party’s objection(s) on the polling scheme had been heard o The other 3 claiming to have filed objections stated that their party’s objection(s) had not been heard.

 In Lower Dir, of the 5 district level political party leaders: o 2 reported that their party’s objection(s) on the polling scheme had been heard o The other 2 claiming to have filed objections stated that their party’s objection(s) had not been heard.

Table C-2.4. Were your party’s objection(s) on the polling scheme heard? National KPK Swat Shangla Chitral Upper Dir Lower Dir Yes 110 38 - 3 2 1 2 No 174 45 3 - - 3 2 Skipped* 238 42 2 2 3 1 1 Grand Total 522 125 5 5 5 5 5 *Based on an earlier response, these respondents were not asked this question.

 At the national level, of the 522 district-level political party leaders: o 110 reported that their party’s objection(s) on the polling scheme had been heard o The other 174 who claimed to have filed objections on the draft polling scheme reported that their party’s objection(s) had not been heard.

 In Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, of the 125 district level political party leaders: o 38 reported that their party’s objection(s) on the polling scheme had been heard o The other 45 who claimed to have filed objections on the draft polling scheme reported that their party’s objection(s) had not been heard.

C-2.5. Redress of Political Parties/Candidates’ Objection on Draft Polling Scheme

Page 55 of 76

Findings of Voters’ List, Delimitation Process and Polling Scheme Assessments of Districts Chitral, Lower Dir, Upper Dir, Shangla and Swat

In order to assess how responsive the grievance redress aspect of the polling scheme is, the district-level political party leaders were next asked whether corrective measures were adopted to address their party’s objection(s) on the polling scheme.

 In Shangla, of the 5 district level political party leaders: o Leaders of all 3 with filed objections on the polling scheme reported that some remedial measures had been adopted to address their party’s objection(s) on the polling scheme.

 In Chitral, of the 5 district level political party leaders: o Leaders of both the leaders with filed objections on the polling scheme reported that some remedial measures had been adopted to address their party’s objection(s) on the polling scheme.

 In Upper Dir, of the 5 district level political party leaders: o Leader of the only party with filed objections on the polling scheme reported that some remedial measures had been adopted to address their party’s objection(s) on the polling scheme.

 In Lower Dir, of the 5 district level political party leaders: o Leaders of both the parties with filed objections stated that remedial measures had not been adopted to address their party’s objection(s) on the polling scheme.

Table C-2.5. Were any remedial measures adopted by the concerned authority to address your party’s objection(s) on the polling scheme? National KPK Swat Shangla Chitral Upper Dir Lower Dir Yes 60 19 - 3 2 1 - No 46 18 - - - - 2 Don’t Know 4 1 - - - - - Skipped* 412 87 5 2 3 4 3 Grand Total 522 125 5 5 5 5 5 *Based on an earlier response, these respondents were not asked this question.

 At the national level, of the 522 district-level political party leaders: o 60 reported that remedial measures had been adopted to address their party’s objection(s) on the polling scheme o The other 46 who had reported that their objections were heard by the concerned officials claimed that remedial measures had not been adopted.

 In Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, of the 125 district-level political party leaders: o 19 reported that remedial measures had been adopted to address their party’s objection(s) on the polling scheme o The other 18 who had reported that their objections were heard by the concerned officials claimed that remedial measures had not been adopted.

Page 56 of 76

Findings of Voters’ List, Delimitation Process and Polling Scheme Assessments of Districts Chitral, Lower Dir, Upper Dir, Shangla and Swat

C-2.6. Political Parties’ Satisfaction with Remedial Measures

The political parties’ level of confidence in the system was further probed when their leadership was asked whether their party was satisfied with the measures adopted to address the objection(s) on the initial polling scheme.

 In Shangla, of the 5 district level political party leaders: o 2 reported that their party had been satisfied with the remedial measures adopted to address the objection(s) on the initial polling scheme o 1 reported that his/her party had not been satisfied with the remedial measures adopted to address the objection(s) on the initial polling scheme.

 In Chitral, of the 5 district level political party leaders: o 2 reported that their party had been satisfied with the remedial measures adopted to address the objection(s) on the initial polling scheme.

 In Upper Dir,, of the 5 district level political party leaders: o 1 reported that his/her party had not been satisfied with the remedial measures adopted to address the objection(s) on the initial polling scheme.

Table C-2.6. Was your party satisfied with the remedial measures adopted? National KPK Swat Shangla Chitral Upper Dir Lower Dir Yes 43 14 - 2 2 - - No 17 5 - 1 - 1 - Skipped* 462 106 5 2 3 4 5 Grand Total 522 125 5 5 5 5 5 *Based on an earlier response, these respondents were not asked this question.

 At the national level, of the 522 district-level political party leaders: o 43 reported that their party had been satisfied with the remedial measures adopted to address the objection(s) on the initial polling scheme o The other 17 who had reported that remedial action was taken on their objections stated that their party had not been satisfied with the remedial measures adopted.

 In Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, of the 125 district level political party leaders: o 14 reported that their party had been satisfied with the remedial measures adopted to address the objection(s) on the initial polling scheme o The other 5 who had reported that remedial action was taken on their objections stated that their party had not been satisfied with the remedial measures adopted.

Page 57 of 76

Findings of Voters’ List, Delimitation Process and Polling Scheme Assessments of Districts Chitral, Lower Dir, Upper Dir, Shangla and Swat

3. Citizen’s Input in Polling Staff Appointment C-3.1. Citizens’ Input in Appointment of Polling Staff: DECs’ Perspective

To assess the scope of citizen’s oversight of polling staff appointment, the DECs were asked whether the citizens in their district were allowed the opportunity to give their input in the appointment of polling staff.

 The DECs in Swat, Chitral, Upper Dir and Lower Dir reported that the citizens in their district had not been given the opportunity to give their input in the appointment of polling staff.

 The DECs in Shangla claimed that the citizens in his district had been given the opportunity to give their input in the appointment of polling staff.

Table C-3.1. Were citizens allowed the opportunity to give their input in the appointment of polling staff? National KPK Swat Shangla Chitral Upper Dir Lower Dir Yes 34 11 - 1 - - - No 61 13 1 - 1 1 1 Interview Refused* 8 ------Grand Total 103 24 1 1 1 1 1 *Respondents who refused to be interviewed and did not answer any question.

 At the national level, of the 103 DECs: o 34 reported that the citizens in their district had been given the opportunity to give their input in the appointment of polling staff o 61 stated that the citizens in their district had not been given the opportunity.

 In Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, of the 24 DECs: o 11 reported that the citizens in their district had been given the opportunity to give their input in the appointment of polling staff o 13 stated that the citizens in their district had not been given the opportunity.

Page 58 of 76

Findings of Voters’ List, Delimitation Process and Polling Scheme Assessments of Districts Chitral, Lower Dir, Upper Dir, Shangla and Swat

C-3.2. Citizens’ Input in Appointment of Polling Staff: Political Parties’ Perspective

Somewhat reflecting the DECs’ position, the majority of the political party leaders reported that the citizens and political parties in their respective districts had not been allowed the opportunity to give their input in the appointment of polling staff.

 In Swat, of the 5 district level political party leaders: o All 5 reported that the citizens and political parties in their district had not been allowed the opportunity to give their input in the appointment of polling staff.

 In Shangla, of the 5 district level political party leaders: o 3 reported that the citizens and political parties in their district had not been allowed the opportunity to give their input in the appointment of polling staff o 2 reported that the citizens and political parties in their district had been allowed the opportunity.

 In Chitral, of the 5 district level political party leaders: o All 5 reported that the citizens and political parties in their district had not been allowed the opportunity to give their input in the appointment of polling staff.

 In Upper Dir, of the 5 district level political party leaders: o 3 reported that the citizens and political parties in their district had not been allowed the opportunity to give their input in the appointment of polling staff o 2 reported that the citizens and political parties in their district had been allowed the opportunity.

 In Lower Dir, of the 5 district level political party leaders: o All 5 reported that the citizens and political parties in their district had not been allowed the opportunity to give their input in the appointment of polling staff.

Table C-3.2. Were citizens and political parties allowed the opportunity to give their input in the appointment of polling staff? National KPK Swat Shangla Chitral Upper Dir Lower Dir Yes 90 25 - 2 - 2 - No 409 99 5 3 5 3 5 Don’t Know 23 1 - - - - - Grand Total 522 125 5 5 5 5 5

 At the national level, of the 522 district level political party leaders: o 90 reported that the citizens and political parties in their district had been allowed the opportunity to give their input in the appointment of polling staff o 409 reported that the citizens and political parties in their district had not been allowed the opportunity o 23 of the respondents said they did not know whether the citizens and political parties in their district had been allowed the opportunity to give their input in the appointment of polling staff.

 In Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, of the 125 district level political party leaders: o 25 reported that the citizens and political parties in their district had been allowed the opportunity to give their input in the appointment of polling staff o 99 reported that the citizens and political parties in their district had not been allowed the opportunity.

Page 59 of 76

Findings of Voters’ List, Delimitation Process and Polling Scheme Assessments of Districts Chitral, Lower Dir, Upper Dir, Shangla and Swat

C-3.3. Political Parties’ Objections on Appointment of Polling Staff

The question about the objections of political parties on the appointment of polling staff reflects the reservations the majority of them had on the initial appointments.

 In Shangla, of the 5 district level political party leaders: o Only 1 reported that their party had raised one or more objections on the appointment of polling staff.

 In Upper Dir, of the 5 district level political party leaders: o 2 reported that their party had raised one or more objections on the appointment of polling staff.

Table C-3.3. Did your party raise any objection on the appointment of polling staff? National KPK Swat Shangla Chitral Upper Dir Lower Dir Yes 55 16 - 1 - 2 - No 35 9 - 1 - - - Skipped* 432 100 5 3 5 3 5 Grand Total 522 125 5 5 5 5 5 *Based on an earlier response, these respondents were not asked this question.

 At the national level, of the 522 district level political party leaders: o 55 reported that their party had raised one or more objections on the appointment of polling staff. o Leaders of the other 35 parties who confirmed that citizens and parties were allowed to give their input on appointment of polling staff reported that their parties had not raised objections on the appointment of polling staff.

 In Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, of the 125 district level political party leaders: o 16 reported that their party had raised one or more objections on the appointment of polling staff. o Leaders of the other 9 parties who confirmed that citizens and parties were allowed to give their input on appointment of polling staff reported that their parties had not raised objections on the appointment of polling staff.

Page 60 of 76

Findings of Voters’ List, Delimitation Process and Polling Scheme Assessments of Districts Chitral, Lower Dir, Upper Dir, Shangla and Swat

C-3.4. Political Parties’ Objection on Appointment of Polling Staff: DECs Perspective

The DECs who claimed that citizens were allowed to give their input in appointment of polling staff were asked to confirm the formal filing of recommendations/objections on the appointment of polling staff in their respective districts.

 In Shangla, the DEC reported that he/she had received one or more recommendations/objections from the citizens on the appointment of polling staff.

Table C-3.4. Did you receive any recommendations/objections from citizens on the appointment of polling staff? National KPK Swat Shangla Chitral Upper Dir Lower Dir Yes 21 8 - 1 - - - No 13 3 - - - - - Skipped* 61 13 1 - 1 1 1 Interview Refused** 8 ------Grand Total 103 24 1 1 1 1 1 *Based on an earlier response, these respondents were not asked this question. **Respondents who refused to be interviewed and did not answer any question.

 At the national level, of the 103 DECs: o 21 reported that they had received one or more recommendations/objections from the citizens on the appointment of polling staff o 13 stated that they had not received any recommendation/objection from the citizens.

 In Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, of the 24 DECs: o 8 reported that they had received one or more recommendations/objections from the citizens on the appointment of polling staff o 3 stated that they had not received any recommendation/objection from the citizens.

Page 61 of 76

Findings of Voters’ List, Delimitation Process and Polling Scheme Assessments of Districts Chitral, Lower Dir, Upper Dir, Shangla and Swat

C-3.5. Redress of Political Parties’ Objection on Appointment of Polling Staff

The district-level political party leaders were further asked whether their party’s objections on the appointment of polling staff were addressed. The majority of them who had confirmed raising objections on the appointment of polling staff reported that remedial measures had not been adopted to address their party’s objections.

 In Shangla, of the 5 district level political party leaders: o The only who reported filing objections on appointment of polling staff informed that remedial measures had been adopted to address his party’s objections(s) on the appointment of polling staff.

 In Upper Dir, of the 5 district level political party leaders: o The 2 who reported filing objections on appointment of polling staff informed that they did not know whether remedial measures had been adopted to address his party’s objections(s) on the appointment of polling staff.

Table C-3.5. Were any remedial measures adopted to address your party’s objection(s) on the appointment of polling staff? National KPK Swat Shangla Chitral Upper Dir Lower Dir Yes 20 3 - 1 - - - No 28 9 - - - - - Don’t Know 7 4 - - - 2 - Skipped* 467 109 5 4 5 3 5 Grand Total 522 125 5 5 5 5 5 *Based on an earlier response, these respondents were not asked this question.

 At the national level, of the 522 district-level political party leaders: o 20 reported that remedial measures had been adopted to address their party’s objections(s) on the appointment of polling staff o The other 28 who reported filing objections on appointment of polling staff stated that remedial measures had not been adopted to address their party’s objections(s).

 In Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, of the 125 district level political party leaders: o 3 reported that remedial measures had been adopted to address their party’s objections(s) on the appointment of polling staff o The other 9 who reported filing objections on appointment of polling staff stated that remedial measures had not been adopted to address their party’s objections(s).

Page 62 of 76

Findings of Voters’ List, Delimitation Process and Polling Scheme Assessments of Districts Chitral, Lower Dir, Upper Dir, Shangla and Swat

4. Polling Stations’ Establishment on Election-day C-4.1. Site of Polling Station Established on Election-Day

The location of a polling station, not only in terms of the premises but also whether it is established as per the publicized polling scheme, carries significant implications for voter turnout on the polling day. In order to examine where the polling stations had been established, the household survey respondents were asked about the premises of their assigned polling station. A predominant majority of the respondents informed that their polling station had been established in a government owned school or building.

 In Chitral, of the 96 respondents of the household survey: o 92 (96%) reported that the polling station assigned to them had been established in a government school o 4 respondents (4%) stated that in a government building other than a school.

 In Lower Dir, of the 256 respondents of the household survey: o 250 (98%) reported that the polling station assigned to them had been established in a government school o Only 1 stated that in a private school/building.

 In Shangla, of the 160 respondents of the household survey: o 159 (99%) reported that the polling station assigned to them had been established in a government school.

 In Swat, of the 528 respondents of the household survey: o 472 (89%) reported that the polling station assigned to them had been established in a government school o 38 (7%) stated that in a government building other than a school o 6 (1%) informed that in a private school/building.

 In Upper Dir, of the 192 respondents of the household survey: o 184 (96%) reported that polling station assigned to them was established in a government school o 1 informed that in a private school/building.

Table C-4.1. Where was the polling station assigned to you established? National KPK Chitral Lower Dir Shangla Swat Upper Dir In Government School 33,244 5,786 92 250 159 472 184 Any other government building 1,650 296 4 - - 38 - Private School/ Building 1,851 65 - 1 - 6 1 Any Other 172 12 - 1 - 1 2 Don’t Know 501 39 - - - 1 - Refused to answer 37 2 - - - - - Skipped* 1,158 101 - 4 1 10 5 Interview Abandoned** 33 1 - - - - - Interview Refused*** 58 ------Grand Total 38,704 6,302 96 256 160 528 192 *Based on an earlier response, these respondents were not asked this question. **Respondents who did not complete the survey and abandoned it before answering this question. ***Respondents who refused to be interviewed and did not answer any question

Page 63 of 76

Findings of Voters’ List, Delimitation Process and Polling Scheme Assessments of Districts Chitral, Lower Dir, Upper Dir, Shangla and Swat

 At the national level, of the 38,704 respondents of the household survey: o 33,244 (86%) reported that the polling station assigned to them had been established in a government school o 1,650 (4%) stated that in a government building other than a school o 1,851 (5%) informed that in a private school/building o 172 reported that it was established in a building other than those listed in the table.

 In Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, of the 6,302 respondents of the household survey: o 5,786 (92%) reported that the polling station assigned to them had been established in a government school o 296 (5%) stated that in a government building other than a school o 65 informed that in a private school/building o 12 reported that it was established in a building other than those listed in the table.

Page 64 of 76

Findings of Voters’ List, Delimitation Process and Polling Scheme Assessments of Districts Chitral, Lower Dir, Upper Dir, Shangla and Swat

C-4.2. Citizens’ Source of Information about Assigned Polling Station

How voters are informed about the polling station assigned to them reflects on the efficiency and capability of political parties, candidates and, more importantly, the ECP.

 In Chitral, of the 96 respondents of household survey: o 49 (51%) reported that their household members had got information about the polling station(s) assigned to them through the candidate o 24 (25%) stated that they had got information through other family members o 16 (17%) reported that they had got information through ECP ad/announcements o 4 (4%) informed that they had got information through ECP’s SMS Service.

 In Lower Dir, of the 256 respondents of household survey: o 201 (79%) reported that their household members had got information about the polling station(s) assigned to them through the candidate o 44 (17%) informed that they had got information through ECP’s SMS Service o 7 stated that they had got information through other family members.

 In Shangla, of the 160 respondents of household survey: o 102 (64 %) reported that their household members had got information about the polling station(s) assigned to them through the candidate o 46 (29 %) informed that they had got information through ECP’s SMS Service o 11 (7 %) stated that they had got information through other family members.

 In Swat, of the 528 respondents, of household survey: o 331 (63%) reported that their household members had got information about the polling station(s) assigned to them through the candidate o 88 (17%) informed that they had got information through ECP’s SMS Service o 43 (8%) reported that they had got information through ECP ad/announcements o 42 (8%) stated that they had got information through other family members

 In Upper Dir, of the 192 respondents of household survey: o 122 (64%) reported that their household members had got information about the polling station(s) assigned to them through the candidate o 38 (20%) informed that they had got information through ECP’s SMS Service o 26 (14%) stated that they had got information through other family members

Page 65 of 76

Findings of Voters’ List, Delimitation Process and Polling Scheme Assessments of Districts Chitral, Lower Dir, Upper Dir, Shangla and Swat

Table C-4.2. How did your household members get information about the polling station(s) assigned to them? Nationa KP Chitra Lower Shangl Swa Upper

l K l Dir a t Dir Through SMS 5,176 963 4 44 46 88 38 ECP Ad/ Announcements 1,512 407 16 - - 43 - 3,96 Through candidate 22,656 49 201 102 331 122 6 From other family members 6,315 636 24 7 11 42 26 Any Other 855 109 3 - - 6 1 Don’t Know 403 78 - - - 7 - Skipped* 1,696 142 - 4 1 11 5 Interview Abandoned** 33 1 - - - - - Interview Refused*** 58 ------6,30 Grand Total 38,704 96 256 160 528 192 2 *Based on an earlier response, these respondents were not asked this question. **Respondents who did not complete the survey and abandoned it before answering this question. ***Respondents who refused to be interviewed and did not answer any question.

 At the national level, of the 38,704 respondents of the household survey: o 22,656 (59%) reported that their household members had got information about the polling station(s) assigned to them through the candidate o 6,315 (16%) stated that they had got information through other family members o 5,176 (13%) informed that they had got information through ECP’s SMS Service o 1,512 (4%) reported that they had got information through ECP ad/announcements o 855 (2%) stated that they had got information from a source other than those listed in the table o 403 (1%) did not know how their household members acquire information about their assigned polling station.

 In Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, of the 6,302 respondents of the household survey: o 3,966 (63%) reported that their household members had got information about the polling station(s) assigned to them through the candidate o 963 (15%) informed that they had got information through ECP’s SMS Service o 636 (10%) stated that it was through other family members o 407 (6%) reported that they had got information through ECP ad/announcements o 109(2%) stated that they had got information from a source other than those listed in the table o 78 (1%) did not know how their household members acquire information about their assigned polling station.

Page 66 of 76

Findings of Voters’ List, Delimitation Process and Polling Scheme Assessments of Districts Chitral, Lower Dir, Upper Dir, Shangla and Swat

C-4.3. Deviation from the Final Polling Scheme on Election-Day: DECs’ Perspective

Any last minute change in the polling scheme results in confusion and, ultimately, lower turnout. When asked whether on election-day all polling stations were established according to the final polling scheme in their district, the predominant majority of the DECs replied in the affirmative.

 The DECs in the under study districts – Swat, Shangla, Chitral, Upper Dir, Lower Dir – reported that on election-day all polling stations had been established according to the final polling scheme.

. Table C-4.3. On election-day, were all polling stations established according to the final polling scheme in your district? National KPK Swat Shangla Chitral Upper Dir Lower Dir Yes 91 24 1 1 1 1 1 No 4 ------Interview Refused* 8 ------Grand Total 103 24 1 1 1 1 1 *Respondents who refused to be interviewed and did not answer any question.

 At the national level, of the 103 DECs: o 91 reported that on election-day all polling stations had been established according to the final polling scheme in their district o 4 stated that on election-day all polling stations had not been established according to the final polling scheme in their district.

 In Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, of the 24 DECs: o 24 reported that on election-day all polling stations had been established according to the final polling scheme in their district.

Page 67 of 76

Findings of Voters’ List, Delimitation Process and Polling Scheme Assessments of Districts Chitral, Lower Dir, Upper Dir, Shangla and Swat

C-4.4. Deviation from the Final Polling Scheme on Election-Day: Political Parties’ Perspective

When asked about the establishment of polling stations according to the final polling scheme in the last elections in their district, the predominant majority of the district-level political party leaders replied in the affirmative. However, a significant number of others informed that the polling stations had not been established according to the final polling scheme in the last elections in their district.

 In Swat, of the 5 district-level political party leaders: o All 5 reported that on election-day all polling stations had been established according to the final polling scheme.

 In Shangla, of the 5 district-level political party leaders: o All 5 reported that on election-day all polling stations had been established according to the final polling scheme.

 In Chitral, of the 5 district-level political party leaders: o All 5 reported that on election-day all polling stations had been established according to the final polling scheme.

 In Upper Dir, of the 5 district-level political party leaders: o 4 reported that on election-day all polling stations had been established according to the final polling scheme o 1 stated that on election-day all polling stations had not been established according to the final polling scheme.

 In Lower Dir, of the 5 district-level political party leaders: o 4 reported that on election-day all polling stations had been established according to the final polling scheme o 1 stated that on election-day all polling stations had not been established according to the final polling scheme.

Table C-4.4. On election-day, were all polling stations established according to the final polling scheme in your district? National KPK Swat Shangla Chitral Upper Dir Lower Dir Yes 425 107 5 5 5 4 4 No 85 16 - - - 1 1 Don’t Know 12 2 - - - - - Grand Total 522 125 5 5 5 5 5

 At the national level, of the 522 district level political party leaders: o 425 reported that on election-day all polling stations had been established according to the final polling scheme in their district o 85 stated that on election-day all polling stations had not been established according to the final polling scheme in their district.

 In Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, of the 125 district level political party leaders: o 107 reported that on election-day all polling stations had been established according to the final polling scheme in their district o 16 stated that on election-day all polling stations had not been established according to the final polling scheme in their district.

Page 68 of 76

Findings of Voters’ List, Delimitation Process and Polling Scheme Assessments of Districts Chitral, Lower Dir, Upper Dir, Shangla and Swat

C-4.5. Deviation from the Final Polling Scheme on Election-Day: Citizens’ Experience

The household survey respondents were also asked whether on election-day the polling station assigned to them was established according to the final/publicized polling scheme. Barring a few, the predominant majority of the respondents replied in the affirmative.

 In Chitral, of the 96 respondents of household survey: o 95 (99%) reported that on election-day the polling station assigned to them had been established as announced/publicized o 1 stated that on election-day the polling station assigned to them had not been established as announced/publicized.

 In Lower Dir, of the 256 respondents of household survey: o 249 (97%) reported that on election-day the polling station assigned to them had been established as announced/publicized o 3 stated that on election-day the polling station assigned to them had not been established as announced/publicized.

 In Shangla, of the 160 respondents of household survey: o 159 (99%) reported that on election-day the polling station assigned to them had been established as announced/publicized.

 In Swat, of the 528 respondents of household survey: o 496(94%) reported that on election-day the polling station assigned to them had been established as announced/publicized o 5 (1%) stated that on election-day the polling station assigned to them had not been established as announced/publicized o 16 (3 %) reported that did not know.

 In Upper Dir, of the 192 respondents, of household survey: o 186 (97%) reported that on election-day the polling station assigned to them had been established as announced/publicized o 1 did not know.

Table C-4.5. On election-day, was the polling station assigned to you established as announced/publicized? National KPK Chitral Lower Dir Shangla Swat Upper Dir Yes 36,154 6,015 95 249 159 496 186 No 399 68 1 3 - 5 - Don’t Know 364 76 - - - 16 1 Skipped* 1,696 142 - 4 1 11 5 Interview Abandoned** 33 1 - - - - - Interview Refused*** 58 ------Grand Total 38,704 6,302 96 256 160 528 192 *Based on an earlier response, these respondents were not asked this question. **Respondents who did not complete the survey and abandoned before answering this question. ***Respondents who refused to be interviewed and did not answer any question.

 At the national level, of the 38,704 respondents of the household survey: o 36,154 (93%) reported that on election-day the polling station assigned to them had been established as announced/publicized o 399 (1%) stated that on election-day the polling station assigned to them had not been established as announced/publicized.

Page 69 of 76

Findings of Voters’ List, Delimitation Process and Polling Scheme Assessments of Districts Chitral, Lower Dir, Upper Dir, Shangla and Swat

 In Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, of the 6,302 respondents of the household survey: o 6,015 (95%) reported that on election-day the polling station assigned to them had been established as announced/publicized o 68 (1%) stated that on election-day the polling station assigned to them had not been established as announced/publicized.

Page 70 of 76

Findings of Voters’ List, Delimitation Process and Polling Scheme Assessments of Districts Chitral, Lower Dir, Upper Dir, Shangla and Swat

C-4.6. Political Parties’ Objection on Deviation from the Final Polling Scheme on Election-Day

The district-level political party leaders who had reported that changes were made to the final polling scheme on election-day were further asked whether they had raised any objection on them. The majority of the respondents replied in the affirmative.

 In Upper Dir, of the 5 political party leaders in each district: o The only one reporting change in the polling scheme informed that his/her party had raised one or more objection(s) on the change in polling scheme on election-day

 Lower Dir, of the 5 political party leaders in each district: o 1 reported that his/her party had raised one or more objection(s) on the change in polling scheme on election-day

Table C-4.6. Did your party raise any objection the change in polling scheme on election-day? National KPK Swat Shangla Chitral Upper Dir Lower Dir Yes 56 11 - - - 1 1 No 26 5 - - - - - Don’t Know 3 ------Skipped* 437 109 5 5 5 4 4 Grand Total 522 125 5 5 5 5 5 *Based on an earlier response, these respondents were not asked this question.

 At the national level, of the 522 district-level political party leaders: o 56 reported that their party had raised one or more objection(s) on the change in polling scheme on election-day o The other 26 reporting change in the polling scheme had not raised any objection to the change.

 In Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, of the 125 district level political party leaders: o 11 reported that their party had raised one or more objection(s) on the change in polling scheme on election-day o The other 5 reporting change in the polling scheme had not raised any objection to the change.

Page 71 of 76

Findings of Voters’ List, Delimitation Process and Polling Scheme Assessments of Districts Chitral, Lower Dir, Upper Dir, Shangla and Swat

C-4.7. Redress of Political Parties’ Objection on Deviation from the Final Polling Scheme

Examining further, the district-level political party leaders who had reported that their party raised at least one objection on the change in polling scheme on election-day were asked whether any action was taken by the officials concerned to address their objection(s). The majority of the respondents informed that no action had been taken to address their objection(s) on the change in polling scheme. .  In Upper Dir, of the 5 political party leaders: o The only party reporting to have raised objection on the change in polling scheme reported that no action had been taken by the officials concerned to address the objection(s) raised by their party.

 In Lower Dir, of the 5 political party leaders: o The only party reporting to have raised objection on the change in polling scheme reported that no action had been taken by the officials concerned to address the objection(s) raised by their party. Table C-4.7. Was any action taken by the officials concerned to address the objection(s) raised by your party? National KPK Swat Shangla Chitral Upper Dir Lower Dir Yes 5 1 - - - - - No 50 10 - - - 1 1 Don’t Know 1 ------Skipped* 466 114 5 5 5 4 4 Grand Total 522 125 5 5 5 5 5 *Based on an earlier response, these respondents were not asked this question.

 At the national level, of the 522 district-level political party leaders: o The 50 parties reporting to have raised objection on the change in polling scheme reported that no action had been taken by the officials concerned to address the objection(s) raised by their party o 5 others reporting to have raised objection on change in polling scheme informed that action had been taken by the officials concerned.

 In Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, of the 125 district level political party leaders: o The 10 parties reporting to have raised objection on the change in polling scheme reported that no action had been taken by the officials concerned to address the objection(s) raised by their party o 1 other reporting to have raised objection on change in polling scheme informed that action had been taken by the officials concerned.

Page 72 of 76

Findings of Voters’ List, Delimitation Process and Polling Scheme Assessments of Districts Chitral, Lower Dir, Upper Dir, Shangla and Swat

C-4.8. Proximity of the Assigned Polling Station to the Community

As one of the most important factors, the distance of the voter’s house from the assigned polling station matters. The household survey respondents were asked whether the polling station assigned to them was the nearest one to their house. The majority of the respondents confirmed that the polling station assigned to them was the nearest to their house. A significant number of the respondents, however, reported that the polling station assigned to them was not the nearest to their house.

 In Chitral, of the 96 respondents of household survey: o 59 (61%) reported that the polling station assigned to them was the nearest to their house o 37 (39%) stated that the polling station assigned to them was not the nearest to their house.

 In Lower Dir, of the 256 respondents of household survey: o 144 (56%) reported that the polling station assigned to them was the nearest to their house o 106 (41%) stated that the polling station assigned to them was not the nearest to their house.

 In Shangla, of the 160 respondents of household survey: o 103 (64%) reported that the polling station assigned to them was the nearest to their house o 56 (35%) stated that the polling station assigned to them was not the nearest to their house.

 In Swat, of the 528 respondents of household survey: o 349 (66%) reported that the polling station assigned to them was the nearest to their house o 166 (31%) stated that the polling station assigned to them was not the nearest to their house.

 In Upper Dir, of the 192 respondents of household survey: o 158 (82%) reported that the polling station assigned to them was the nearest to their house o 27 (14%) stated that the polling station assigned to them was not the nearest to their house.

Table C-4.8. Was the polling station assigned to you the nearest to your house? National KPK Chitral Lower Dir Shangla Swat Upper Dir Yes 31,750 5,005 59 144 103 349 158 No 4,918 1,109 37 106 56 166 27 Don’t Know 248 45 - 2 - 2 2 Skipped* 1,696 142 - 4 1 11 5 Interview Abandoned** 34 1 - - - - - Interview Refused*** 58 ------Grand Total 38,704 6,302 96 256 160 528 192 *Based on an earlier response, these respondents were not asked this question. **Respondents who did not complete the survey and abandoned it before answering this question. ***Respondents who refused to be interviewed and did not answer any question.

 At the national level, of the 38,704 respondents of the household survey: o 31,750 (82%) reported that the polling station assigned to them was the nearest to their house o 4,918 (13%) stated that the polling station assigned to them was not the nearest to their house.

 In Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, of the 6,302 respondents of the household survey: o 5,005 (79%) reported that the polling station assigned to them was the nearest to their house o 1,109 (18%) stated that the polling station assigned to them was not the nearest to their house.

Page 73 of 76

Findings of Voters’ List, Delimitation Process and Polling Scheme Assessments of Districts Chitral, Lower Dir, Upper Dir, Shangla and Swat

C-4.9. Neutrality of Polling Station

Where a polling station is established, premises and its location, are also important factor for voters in communities that have tribal/ethnic/sectarian divide. The household survey respondents were asked about the neutrality of the area and venue of the polling station assigned to them. The majority of the respondents affirmed that the polling station assigned to them was located in a neutral area.

 In Chitral, of the 96 respondents of the household survey: o 83 (86%) reported that the polling station assigned to them had been established in a neutral area o 13 (14%) stated that the polling station assigned to them had not been established in a neutral area.

 In Lower Dir, of the 256 respondents of the household survey: o 251 (98%) reported that the polling station assigned to them had been established in a neutral area.

 In Shangla, of the 160 respondents of the household survey: o 156 (98%) reported that the polling station assigned to them had been established in a neutral area o 2 stated that the polling station assigned to them had not been established in a neutral area.

 In Swat, of the 528 respondents of the household survey: o 493 (93%) reported that the polling station assigned to them had been established in a neutral area o 4 stated that the polling station assigned to them had not been established in a neutral area.

 In Upper Dir, of the 192 respondents of the household survey: o 181 (94%) reported that the polling station assigned to them had been established in a neutral area o 1 stated that the polling station assigned to them had not been established in a neutral area.

Table C-4.9. Was the polling station assigned to you established in a neutral area? National KPK Chitral Lower Dir Shangla Swat Upper Dir Yes 34,368 5,961 83 251 156 493 181 No 1,493 108 13 - 2 4 1 Don’t Know 998 86 - 1 1 19 5 Refused to answer 54 4 - - - 1 - Skipped* 1,696 142 - 4 1 11 5 Interview Abandoned** 37 1 - - - - - Interview Refused*** 58 ------Grand Total 38,704 6,302 96 256 160 528 192

 At the national level, of the 38,704 respondents of the household survey: o 34,368 (89%) reported that the polling station assigned to them had been established in a neutral area o 1,493 (4%) stated that the polling station assigned to them had not been established in a neutral area.

 In Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, of the 6,302 respondents of the household survey:

Page 74 of 76

Findings of Voters’ List, Delimitation Process and Polling Scheme Assessments of Districts Chitral, Lower Dir, Upper Dir, Shangla and Swat o 5,961 (95%) reported that the polling station assigned to them had been established in a neutral area o 108 (2%) stated that the polling station assigned to them had not been established in a neutral area.

Page 75 of 76