It’s the parliament, stupid!
Reaction of the govt in Panama scandal showed how secondary parliament was in the estimation of the PM
The writer teaches at IT University Lahore and is the author of ‘A Princely Affair: The Accession and Integration of the Princely States of Pakistan, 1947-55.’ He tweets at @BangashYK
Afew weeks ago, I was in my usual academic mode and lecturing a PML-N parliamentarian on the centrality of parliament in the democratic process and lamenting the dismal attendance record of all parliamentarians, including the prime minister and that of the cabinet members, when she quickly retorted: “Well, the PPP gave importance to parliament for five years, but nothing changed.” This comment, coming from a rather active parliamentarian, should make us pause and think about how we treat the most central of all democratic institutions in the country — the parliament.
Pakistan is officially a Westminster style ‘parliamentary democracy’, which means that parliament is, in a way, ‘sovereign’. Our inheritance of the British constitutional convention means that the only institution, which has no limitation on its power — at least theoretically — is parliament. Of course the Constitution exists as the supreme law of the country, but that too is the creature of parliament, which can amend, abrogate and transform any part of it, according to the rules it has itself devised.
The recent judgment of the Supreme Court of Pakistan against the doctrine of ‘basic structure’ means that parliament is not even saddled by certain unchangeable features of the Constitution (though on closer inspection, the judgment is slightly more complicated than what I note above for argument’s sake). Parliament — as the representative body — expresses the will of the people and therefore is the supreme institution.
Ever since the restoration of democracy in Pakistan, the performance of successive parliaments has been dismal. While the previous PPP prime ministers and cabinet members did attend the National Assembly more often, the reality was that the presidency was taking most of the important policy decisions and hence their presence made little difference. In the current dispensation, the prime minister rarely attends a session and even a number of cabinet minsters are regular absentees. Recently there was quite a lot of furore in the Senate due to the non-availability of a minister to answer questions, and the even more recent budget debate further exhibited this tendency.
The reaction of the government in the Panama scandal also showed how secondary parliament was in the estimation of the prime minister. While in the UK, David Cameron came to the House of Commons — the institution he is answerable to — to give an explanation about the involvement of his father in some deals, his counterpart in Pakistan addressed the nation instead. Yes, direct addresses to the nation are important but not at the cost of undermining the fundamental institution of the country.
Pakistan has only just restarted its journey towards democracy and while the legacy of executive rule is strong (both during parliamentary and military rules), the country’s only hope is the strengthening of the institution of its parliament.
The above comment from a parliamentarian is a remark made in frustration, but parliamentarians themselves must accept the fact that it might take a couple of decades for a fully functioning parliamentary system to establish itself in Pakistan. We have just had the first full parliamentary term in the country’s history and expecting things to fall into place immediately is simply not possible. Once parliament is empowered, even the civil and military imbalance can be addressed within its remit, provincial grievances can be tackled through it, and equitable development, which positively affects the whole of the country, can be channelled through it. Yes, all of this will take time and effort — it will require turning up and discussing policy and making laws in parliament in every session; but only then will real change come to Pakistan.
As former US president Bill Clinton so succinctly noted that the economy was the primary issue in the United States, we must begin with empowering parliament too if we really want democracy to take root in Pakistan. It really is the parliament, stupid!
Published in The Express Tribune, July 10th, 2016.
Pakistan is officially a Westminster style ‘parliamentary democracy’, which means that parliament is, in a way, ‘sovereign’. Our inheritance of the British constitutional convention means that the only institution, which has no limitation on its power — at least theoretically — is parliament. Of course the Constitution exists as the supreme law of the country, but that too is the creature of parliament, which can amend, abrogate and transform any part of it, according to the rules it has itself devised.
The recent judgment of the Supreme Court of Pakistan against the doctrine of ‘basic structure’ means that parliament is not even saddled by certain unchangeable features of the Constitution (though on closer inspection, the judgment is slightly more complicated than what I note above for argument’s sake). Parliament — as the representative body — expresses the will of the people and therefore is the supreme institution.
Ever since the restoration of democracy in Pakistan, the performance of successive parliaments has been dismal. While the previous PPP prime ministers and cabinet members did attend the National Assembly more often, the reality was that the presidency was taking most of the important policy decisions and hence their presence made little difference. In the current dispensation, the prime minister rarely attends a session and even a number of cabinet minsters are regular absentees. Recently there was quite a lot of furore in the Senate due to the non-availability of a minister to answer questions, and the even more recent budget debate further exhibited this tendency.
The reaction of the government in the Panama scandal also showed how secondary parliament was in the estimation of the prime minister. While in the UK, David Cameron came to the House of Commons — the institution he is answerable to — to give an explanation about the involvement of his father in some deals, his counterpart in Pakistan addressed the nation instead. Yes, direct addresses to the nation are important but not at the cost of undermining the fundamental institution of the country.
Pakistan has only just restarted its journey towards democracy and while the legacy of executive rule is strong (both during parliamentary and military rules), the country’s only hope is the strengthening of the institution of its parliament.
The above comment from a parliamentarian is a remark made in frustration, but parliamentarians themselves must accept the fact that it might take a couple of decades for a fully functioning parliamentary system to establish itself in Pakistan. We have just had the first full parliamentary term in the country’s history and expecting things to fall into place immediately is simply not possible. Once parliament is empowered, even the civil and military imbalance can be addressed within its remit, provincial grievances can be tackled through it, and equitable development, which positively affects the whole of the country, can be channelled through it. Yes, all of this will take time and effort — it will require turning up and discussing policy and making laws in parliament in every session; but only then will real change come to Pakistan.
As former US president Bill Clinton so succinctly noted that the economy was the primary issue in the United States, we must begin with empowering parliament too if we really want democracy to take root in Pakistan. It really is the parliament, stupid!
Published in The Express Tribune, July 10th, 2016.