Beyond party lines

In September, a finance bill introduced by the PTI-led government attained a majority vote in the National Assembly whereby restrictions on non-filers being able to purchase property and vehicles were lifted. Following severe censure, an amended finance bill was passed, with a majority of lawmakers having volte faced on their initial vote by reinstating the limitations on non-filers. It is disconcerting that only three weeks were taken for our legislators to swing back from a polaristic standpoint. This is a blatant example of lawmakers sightlessly subscribing to party policy when casting votes on legislative concerns. Party-line voting constrains members of parliament from taking action outside what is determined by the leadership of their political party. It is a universal cancer, which pervasively infects democratic processes across our borders.

Party-line voting subliminally dispossesses legislators of their free will; it strips them from being able to consciously apply their mind. The motive: to ensure behaviour is cohesive in order to invoke the party’s interests. Legislators are envisaged as repositories of public interest and confidence. The people who elect them have a legitimate expectation that their concerns will be posited. Prior to voting then, a member of parliament should impulsively inquire as to the consequences — upon the public — of the vote being cast.

Unfortunately, this is not the case. Lawmakers are usually paralysed by the dictates of party policy. This can occur in both fairly overt and implicit ways. For example, our Constitution just falls short of criminal liability, going as far as to enumerate grounds of ‘defection’ for members of the parliament in Article 63A. This means that a member can be removed from office if they do not vote in line with party policy or abstain from casting their vote in matters relating to money bills, elections of the prime minister, the chief minister or even a constitutional amendment. In effect, the Constitution caps the legislative capacity of our lawmakers by making them subject to the whims of ruling political parties. Tacit forms of ensuring discipline in voting include threatening re-election prospects of lawmakers through the denial of party tickets, barring promotions to cabinet offices or refusing memberships to parliamentary committees.

Although ruling parties require some degree of unity in order to ensure effective and good governance, a reasonable balance needs to be struck. A lawmaker must not be rebuked or punished for acting in accordance with his conscience. Members of parliament owe a duty to their political parties, however, this should not be allowed to triumph over the sacred relationship between the general public and its representatives. To allow otherwise would erode the notion that parliament is a deliberative creature, when in fact its capacity to debate has been choked by the motives of the ruling political party.

Party discipline also cannot have the effect of diminishing parliament to a rubber stamp for the head of a political party to enforce his will. A bizarre example of this occurred last year when a draft bill, allowing persons disqualified under Articles 62 and 63 of the Constitution to head political parties, was bulldozed through Parliament. This was to mitigate the consequences of an earlier judgment of the Supreme Court, through which Nawaz Sharif had been disqualified.

The idea of passing a law suited to a specific individual is inherently repugnant and manifestly depicts the dangers entrenched in the unchecked enforcement of party discipline. The Constitution and the law should not complement the disempowerment of legislators.

Throughout developed democracies, lawmaking is a laborious and inclusive process. Members of the government benches sit down to convince and negotiate with legislators. At the very least, our Constitution should not expressly penalise defection. Representatives of both Houses frequently vote against their parties in the US — Senator Joe Manchin voted in favour of Brett Kavanaugh, associate justice of the Supreme Court. Similarly, the United Kingdom does not have an anti-defection law. In December 2017, Theresa May lost a key vote in a withdrawal bill on Brexit after 11 lawmakers from her Tory party rebelled.

Anti-defection laws have ultimately eroded the identity of individual lawmakers, building an environment where election votes are cast on the basis of party affiliation. Questions need to be raised about the equilibrium in the loyalties of a representative to his party and the general public. Individually, we must transcend party-lines and inculcate a culture of demanding justification from legislators on the stances taken in the law-making process. It is high time we begin to inquire how our disposition of trust and confidence is being exercised by the individuals choosing to represent us.

Published in The Express Tribune, October 21^st, 2018.

Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.