Democratic reform: tune-up or engine overhaul

Our democratic system, much like a car that squeaks and wails, is in need of repair. But is it going to be a tune-up (filters, belts, hoses) or a painstaking engine overhaul from the ground up with a hefty price tag? Let’s ask ourselves a few questions:

Is party line voting undemocratic?

Imagine you are a member of the National Assembly. A bill is introduced in the chamber: only citizens with a master’s degree or better from a university are allowed to cast a vote in elections. Your party, backed by the educated bourgeoisie, wants you to vote “for” the bill. Your conscience tells you to vote “against” it. Another bill is brought to the table: criticism of the Prime Minister in any form or manner will be deemed a criminal offence subject to severe penalties including life in prison. Your party (whose chairperson is the current Prime Minister) wants you to vote “for” the bill. A vociferous humanitarian, you vote against the bill.

Note that Article 63-A of the Constitution does not apply in the above scenarios because they do not deal with election of Prime Minister or vote of no-confidence or money bill or constitutional amendment.

As a parliamentarian, you have sworn to “perform (your) functions honestly, to the best of (your) ability, faithfully, in accordance with the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan … and always in the interest of the sovereignty, integrity, solidarity, well-being and prosperity of Pakistan.”

In the US Congress, party line voting was at 60% in early 1970s. By 2017, it had soared to a whopping 90%. The legislative performance consequently stumbled, argues David Davenport, a fellow at the Hoover Institution. (A Growing Cancer on Congress: The Curse of Party Line Voting, Forbes 2017).

If the core values of a party member clash with the core values of the party, then the member may resign or be axed from the party. However, we must mend laws that stifle dissent and put freedom of expression in a chokehold.

Crossing the floor (an obvious reference to the seating arrangement in the British House of Commons) implies a member switching allegiance to another party. Perfectly all right, in and by itself, the legitimacy of floor crossing has been challenged especially if it is motivated by an “enticement”. Theatrics associated with recent allegations of horse-trading are fresh in our collective memory. However, this is not a new phenomenon by any means. There are allegedly “multiple kinds of horse-trading mafia which is deep rooted in many political parties, administrative structures and banking.” (Horse-trading v. corruption ridden Pakistan, www.thenews.com.pk, February 28, 2021).

Is resigning en masse from the National Assembly unethical?

In a blatant disregard for their parliamentary obligations, PTI members tendered mass resignations after their party leader was ousted as the Prime Minister by a no-confidence vote. They decided to launch “peaceful” street protests instead.

Ironically, the PDM, an alliance of 11 political parties, had threatened a similar move in December 2020 when they announced that “the lawmakers will resign en masse by the end of (the) month from parliament to paralyze the government and force (then) Prime Minister Imran Khan to call early snap polls. (The Economic Times, December 2020).

Should there be ethical or legal ramifications for turning your back, as a party, to your constituents who elected you to sit in the legislative assembly, not on the streets?

Is a criminal indictment sufficient to bar a candidate from running for or holding public office?

Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif was arrested by NAB in September 2020 in a money laundering case. Recently, a Lahore special court postponed the indictment date to May 14. As we know, there is a difference between a criminal indictment (charges) and a criminal conviction (guilt proven). The due process of law must be followed. Innocent until proven guilty.

But the question is: should a candidate be forbidden from running for or holding office if he or she is indicted until the charges are dismissed?

Will Term Limits reduce corruption and improve legislative performance?

Incumbents frown on the idea. Lobbyists ridicule it. It threatens their monopoly on power. And that’s a good enough reason to push for term limits.

May I suggest no more than two four-year terms for President and/or Prime Minister, no more than two four-year terms for members of the National Assembly, and no more than two six-year terms for Senators?

Today, we are at war with ourselves. Our self-righteousness reeks of bigotry. The hatred and vitriol spewed from the corridors of social media are becoming endemic in our social and political culture. Our moral commitment — that defined the zeitgeist — is breathing its last.

Political gossip is juicy. But it suffocates the conversation causing intellectual hypoxia. It’s time to ask questions.

“I was never aware of any other option but to question everything.” (Noam Chomsky)

Published in The Express Tribune, May 10^th, 2022.

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