Political impasse

There actually should be none. The Constitution lays out rules and the laws to govern and provide limits of conduct for all institutions of the government and the Parliament. Yet we are in one whether a contrived tactic or nuisance. I spent some years in England watching very closely the politics and the government in its functioning and in associated areas of governance. John Major had just taken over from the Iron Lady Margaret Thatcher — yes, even her; she had lost the confidence of her own Party — and a statesman of the stature of Winston Churchill from history who had won England its glorious hour too was disowned and displaced by his cabinet and the party through a listless Anthony Eden. The knives were out for him making it a fait accompli for a largely devastated Churchill. More recently, David Cameron and Theresa May lost confidence of their colleagues and simply chose to step aside. Nowhere were these changes forced by the opposition.

When a prime minister found that he had lost confidence of his colleagues and did not command the majority in the house he did the most natural thing to report the event to the Monarch who may then appoint another who would then prove he carried the majority. In some cases even though a nominated person carried the majority he or she would still call for a fresh mandate to not depend on a mandate in another leader’s name. This might risk his stakes in a government that he already carried but the moral thing was to own only what belonged to him or her. Sometime the electorate would not agree and instead gave the other party the chance to run the government for them. The country around whose democratic system the world models their governance has traditions and values which are now etched as foundations of in democratic governance.

True, some dithered to give in right away and attempted to win back support through canvassing the dissonant — all in a democratic way — but the moment they found that the knives were out among his surrounding knights, or that the dominant opinion wasn’t in his favour, or he no longer carried majority in the house he would simply so declare. The tradition proceeds a referral back to the electorate or a change within the ranks in a party. That is the prescribed democratic way. When someone defies the larger sense it only muddies the democratic tradition. Primacy is to what is decided in the parliament and among the parliamentarians not when matters are referred to the courts or another arbiter which demeans democracy and lowers it mantle. When matters are referred to institutions outside the parliament there are other factors which come into play weakening the democratic tradition.

In the 2000 US Presidential election the US Supreme Court had to adjudicate in favour of George W Bush over Al Gore on an electoral dispute in Florida. It is considered a low point in the history of American politics which significantly set back America’s strong democratic tradition. It also marks the moment when a staunchly founded liberal democratic tradition in American politics suffered its first irrecoverable reverse. The US hasn’t regained its democratic bearing since which was further pulverised at the hands of Donald Trump. Liberal democratic order the world over is thus in a decline. The saving grace was that Al Gore accepted the verdict and ceded the election. Closer to home we convert a constitutional reference into a criminal end by taking on the Court and rushing the judges in their chambers with an aim to scare the law into submission.

The PTI government, faced with the challenge of losing the majority in the parliament, has too taken to the courts seeking clarifications on the consequences of some provisions in the Constitution. The basic question relates to whether the vote of those dissenting against the PM will count. The question presumes that when a prime minister orders his party-men to vote a certain way in a no-confidence motion, they cannot vote any other way. The matter is in the court and they will adjudicate based on the interpretation of the existing clauses and the intent of those provisions, but taken prima facie it almost disables the possibility of a no-confidence vote ever, against any prime minister, if indeed this is what the Court concludes. It thus makes no-confidence superfluous to our political need. Can it be so? Or is it subtly meant to provide stability and sustenance to a democratically elected political dispensation? And if it were so would it then need an impeachment clause to remove a sitting prime minister?

What is the retribution beyond simple de-seating of the offenders in the mentioned law and for what duration? If the de-seating is only till the next election, whenever held, where lies the deterrence in such retribution which may preclude an easy manipulation of those willing to sell their support at an agreed cost. Members may then for fear or favour undermine a system at the detriment of its long-term sustainability. Clearly the loose ends in the law need to be tightened even when the spirit and the intent of the law are both preserved.

Why wouldn’t Imran Khan choose the moral and the democratic way out of the impasse? The reasons can be manifold from personal to aspirational to perceptional, none of which though justifies a conduct in parliamentary democracy which trumps both the spirit and the tradition. Three imperatives should inform Imran Khan’s preferred choice to resolve the dilemma: that the constitutional spirit is more important than holding on to power especially when moral authority too has run out; that, any amount of inaction because of a prolonged dysfunction of the state and the government in paralysis is indeed an unbearable cost overriding any other political purpose and thus will need to be avoided; and that indeed the country, its stability and the well-being of its people is far bigger than any tribal, familial or personal reason to hold on to power. The best that he can do is to go back to the people in such a case and fight it out for them and for his party to regain his credibility and legal and moral authority through a fresh mandate. He could do worse by taking the house down if he finds himself going down. Or he could be wiser in adversity and save the day for the long term gain of all, the country and the people. The eyes of history are on him. Can he disprove his detractors? Can he rise to that mantle? History awaits his answer.

Published in The Express Tribune, March 25^th, 2022.

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