Opinion | Elections in PoK & Pakistan’s Tight Control Over the Electoral Process

For decades, Pakistan has projected PoK internationally as a model of self-governance compared to other disputed regions. However, constitutional experts, independent analysts, and rights groups continue to argue that it lacks genuine political autonomy and unrestricted democratic participation.

The political and constitutional situation in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK), by Pakistan, has remained one of the most debated issues in South Asian politics. Although Pakistan presents PoK as a self-governing and autonomous region with its own President, Prime Minister, Legislative Assembly, and judiciary, several international reports, constitutional analyses, and human rights organizations have repeatedly highlighted that the actual control of the region largely rests with Islamabad and the Pakistani military establishment. Elections are regularly conducted in PoK, and political parties participate in campaigns much like parliamentary democracies elsewhere. On the surface, this gives the impression of democratic governance and public participation. However, the constitutional framework under which these elections take place places severe restrictions on political freedom and ideological diversity. The Interim Constitution Act of 1974 clearly states that no individual or political party can participate in politics if they oppose the idea of Jammu and Kashmir’s accession to Pakistan. This means that groups advocating complete independence or alternative political futures are effectively barred from electoral politics.

This constitutional condition raises serious questions about the nature of democracy in the area. Democracy is generally understood as the freedom of people to choose among multiple political ideas and leadership options. In PoK, however, the legal system restricts political participation to only those who support a particular constitutional ideology. Human Rights Watch described this framework as a major impediment to genuine democracy and political pluralism.Pakistan’s influence over PoK is not limited to electoral restrictions alone. The constitutional arrangement itself places enormous powers in the hands of Pakistan’s federal authorities. The Azad Kashmir Council, historically headed by the Prime Minister of Pakistan, exercised authority over many key subjects including finance, administration, judicial matters, and governance. Reports and constitutional studies have argued that the elected government in Muzaffarabad functions more as a symbolic administration while real decision-making authority remains with Islamabad.

Section 56 of the Interim Constitution Act has also been criticized because it allows Pakistan to dismiss the elected government in PoK regardless of legislative support within the local assembly. Such provisions create an imbalance between local governance and federal control. Analysts argue that these legal mechanisms weaken institutional autonomy and make local governments dependent on Pakistan’s political and military establishment.Another major concern revolves around the role of the Pakistani military in the political affairs of PoK. Various studies and international reports suggest that the military establishment exerts substantial influence over governance, security policy, and political developments in the region. Former political leaders from PoK have reportedly acknowledged privately that important political decisions often require approval from military authorities.

Human rights and civil liberties in PoK have also attracted international scrutiny. Human Rights Watch reported restrictions on freedom of expression, association, and media activity. The report highlighted allegations of arbitrary arrests, intimidation of political activists, censorship, and pressure on nationalist groups that question Pakistan’s official position on Kashmir. Freedom of speech in PoK is often viewed through the lens of national security. Critics argue that voices demanding complete independence or criticizing Pakistan’s Kashmir policy face institutional pressure. Journalists and activists have occasionally complained of surveillance, intimidation, and restrictions in carrying out independent political activities. Reports have also mentioned that media organizations operate under strong administrative and security oversight.

The issue of representation further complicates the political structure. PoK does not have representation in Pakistan’s Parliament because Pakistan officially maintains that the territory is disputed and not constitutionally integrated as a province. At the same time, PoK also lacks full sovereignty and independent international recognition. This creates a constitutional ambiguity where the region is neither fully autonomous nor fully integrated into Pakistan. Reservations and special seats exist within the PoK Legislative Assembly, including seats for women, technocrats, overseas Kashmiris, and refugees from different parts of Jammu and Kashmir settled in Pakistan. While these arrangements are projected as inclusive mechanisms, critics argue that the larger political framework still remains tightly controlled. Another important issue concerns economic dependence. PoK relies heavily on financial assistance from Pakistan’s federal government. Major infrastructure projects, administrative funding, and institutional expenditures are linked to Islamabad’s policies. Because of this dependence, local governments often struggle to exercise independent policy-making authority.

Over the years, there have also been public protests in PoK regarding inflation, electricity tariffs, unemployment, and governance issues. These protests sometimes reflected broader frustrations regarding political control and economic conditions. Observers have noted that despite having electoral institutions, the public often feels disconnected from actual decision-making processes.The overall scenario in PoK presents a complex mixture of limited democratic structures, constitutional restrictions, military influence, and constrained political freedoms. Elections are held regularly, political parties contest seats, and local institutions formally exist. Yet many international observers and rights organizations maintain that these institutions operate within a narrow political framework shaped primarily by Pakistan’s strategic and constitutional interests.

For decades, Pakistan has projected PoK internationally as a model of self-governance compared to other disputed regions. However, constitutional experts, independent analysts, and rights groups continue to argue that it lacks genuine political autonomy and unrestricted democratic participation. The debate over rights, liberty, and representation in PoK therefore remains central to the broader POK issue and continues to shape regional political discourse.

aatiflonekashmir@gmail.com