Curse of floor-crossing

No arrangements have served as a remedy, with horse-trading still a part of wheeling and dealing to topple govts

The plague of floor-crossing continues to rot our parliamentary system. With all norms, ethics and principles direly missing, this game of musical chairs goes on and on. Our elected representatives, just to stay on the side of the power, never mind defecting from one party to another.

Devoid of any political morality, the system gets derailed quite too often, resulting in anything — like a controlled regime, a hybrid setup, etc — but a true government of the people, for the people, by the people. With a disdain towards true representations in the Assembly, hobnobbing and conspiracy has become the norm of the day. If we date back to 1950s, the emergence of Republican Party from within Muslim League speaks of sheer political opportunism. Barring a few exceptions, who upheld and stood for democratic values and principles, most political leaders are found ever ready to jump on to the new bandwagon of power. Muslim League was always seen as a hat that fitted all heads given the fact that all dictators wore the League’s mantle by becoming its President.

Recently, this unethical game of thrones was again on display during the vote of no-confidence against Prime Minister Imran Khan. This brought back into focus the issue of defection or floor crossing — something that the common man now calls ‘lota-ism’.

The fact remains that the rot of defections could not be cured, despite various clauses being inserted into the Constitution from time to time. It goes without saying that change in loyalties has been patronised by those at the helm of the country’s leading political parties, besides being encouraged by forces alien to the Constitution. Attempts at fixing the rot through legal or constitutional means have gone in vain simply because crossing the floor and accepting turncoats is considered a political right. Only strong political conventions provide strength to constitutional clauses to act as a bulwark against horse-trading. That is why the Constitution of 1973, in its original form, did not contain any clause to prevent defections. In fact, the authors of the Constitution believed that sound parliamentary practices would take care of the system.

Through the fourteenth amendment, during the tenure of Nawaz Sharif in 1997, provisions against floor crossing were added to the Constitution vide insertion of Article 63-A. It was incorporated with the intent “to prevent instability in relation to the formation and functioning of [the] Government”.

Under the fourteenth amendment, ‘defection’ was defined in a very broad sense. A member of National Assembly or a member of a provincial assembly elected on the ticket of a political party was considered to defect if (a) he violated party discipline, (b) voted contrary to directions of his parliamentary party, or (c) abstained from voting against party directives on any bill.

The decision thus rested with the head of the political party to determine whether any of his legislators had committed defection on any of the aforementioned grounds. Such a decision of the party chief would be transmitted to the Speaker of the National or Provincial Assembly (the presiding officer) as the case may be. Both were under obligation to forward the decision to the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) in two days. Upon receiving the decision, the CEC had to declare within seven days the member disqualified and his seat vacant.

The fourteenth amendment effectively empowered party heads to disqualify a lawmaker whereas the presiding officers and the CEC were to merely act as post office. As such on those grounds of defection, a member could be shunted out conveniently.

Eighteenth Amendment also touched Article 63-A, but without bringing any substantial changes. The grounds of defection remain the same. The Election Commission now has the discretion either to turn down or confirm the reference, with the decision also subject to judicial review. Under the new provision, party head has been substituted with head of the parliamentary party.

No arrangements have, however, served as a remedy, with horse-trading still very much a part of wheeling and dealing to topple governments. This practice has also got augmented due to multiparty system resulting mostly into a hung parliament.

With scant regard to healthy political traditions based on principles, the country has been a fertile field for change of loyalties. Without a shred of remorse or a feeble prick of conscience, our public representatives don’t mind switching sides for political gains; and smaller parties, factions and independents make themselves available for sale. In this scramble for power, strange bedfellows with no common ideology, have jumbled, leaving aside the main issue of parliamentary sovereignty, thus betraying the trust reposed by the electorate.

Drawing analogy from the laws of anti-corruption, we can easily state that despite those laws we could not get rid of political or bureaucratic corruption. By the same token, Article 6 of the Constitution describes abrogation, or suspension or subversion of the Constitution as an act of high treason, but despite this military coups could not be prevented. Similarly, Article 63-A has failed to elicit desired results.

Suffice it to say that Pakistan’s political history is a testimony to the fact that whenever political parties have the intention to indulge in floor-crossing, they find a way. With the various constitutional provisions failing to nip the evil of floor-crossing in the bud, it is only left with the political parties to exercise moral political practices to provide a remedy. The onus thus lies with our political bigwigs.

Published in The Express Tribune, April 27^th, 2022.

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