PM’s attendance record
One wonders how the Leader of the House approves and signs on bills that he knows so little about
PHOTO: FILE
Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s attitude towards parliament at times appears to be akin to that of a monarch, not a public representative accountable to the people who elected him. Recently, the PPP proposed an amendment to the National Assembly’s rules that would have made it mandatory for the prime minister to attend parliament every Wednesday and answer lawmakers’ questions. But this move was categorically rejected by the treasury benches on the basis of the prime minister having to “deal with many other administrative issues”.
An effective parliamentary system of governance is one where the Leader of the House engages in debates with other public representatives on a regular basis. Throwing out such a resolution because of the prime minister’s busy schedule is both damaging and disrespectful to the democratic system. British Prime Minister David Cameron, for instance, can be seen in parliament every Wednesday where he answers questions brought forth to him by MPs. Surely, Mr Cameron, too, must have many administrative issues to deal with, but he still manages to find the time to take care of an important parliamentary task.
Since his election, Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s attendance record in parliament has come under much criticism. In the first parliamentary year, he attended the National Assembly for a measly seven days. It was not until his government appeared to be in danger with the events of the dharna that he started appearing regularly in assembly sessions. Parliament was his only hope and certainly his only strength at the time, and it did bail him out. But after matters settled, the prime minister disappeared again. This perpetual absenteeism reflects a lack of interest in parliamentary debates. One wonders how the Leader of the House approves and signs on bills that he knows so little about. Had the resolution brought by the PPP been approved, it would not only have helped bring the prime minister to the assembly, it would have also promoted a culture of accountability for the office itself and ensured that all future heads of government respect the system that brings them to power.
Published in The Express Tribune, January 20th, 2016.
An effective parliamentary system of governance is one where the Leader of the House engages in debates with other public representatives on a regular basis. Throwing out such a resolution because of the prime minister’s busy schedule is both damaging and disrespectful to the democratic system. British Prime Minister David Cameron, for instance, can be seen in parliament every Wednesday where he answers questions brought forth to him by MPs. Surely, Mr Cameron, too, must have many administrative issues to deal with, but he still manages to find the time to take care of an important parliamentary task.
Since his election, Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s attendance record in parliament has come under much criticism. In the first parliamentary year, he attended the National Assembly for a measly seven days. It was not until his government appeared to be in danger with the events of the dharna that he started appearing regularly in assembly sessions. Parliament was his only hope and certainly his only strength at the time, and it did bail him out. But after matters settled, the prime minister disappeared again. This perpetual absenteeism reflects a lack of interest in parliamentary debates. One wonders how the Leader of the House approves and signs on bills that he knows so little about. Had the resolution brought by the PPP been approved, it would not only have helped bring the prime minister to the assembly, it would have also promoted a culture of accountability for the office itself and ensured that all future heads of government respect the system that brings them to power.
Published in The Express Tribune, January 20th, 2016.