What does unanimous passage of PML-N resolutions signify?
Things between the government and the opposition appeared to have changed somewhat.
Notwithstanding hawkish posturing, the PML-N had certainly agreed to help the government in dispensing with parliamentary business. Until late Thursday night Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan had been assertively telling the media that the opposition would not let the “corruption-protecting law” be passed, which the PPP-led coalition had put before ongoing sessions of the Senate and the National Assembly.
His rudely defiant statements regarding the proposed law for accountability of politicians had rather compelled some regulators of the parliamentary business to seriously consider the idea of getting the National Assembly prorogued after its meeting on Friday.
Things between the government and the opposition appeared to have changed somewhat, when Chaudhry Nisar surprised the press gallery by entering the house close to its adjournment. Noticing his arrival, Syed Khurshid Shah excitedly left his seat to welcome the opposition leader with gleeful smiles and warm embraces. The floor was instantly given to him when Nisar pressed the button for it and started wailing over the grim realities of Balochistan.
After his rhetorical lamenting, Zahid Hamid was allowed to present not one but two resolutions. The first expressed the desire for establishing a national commission on Balochistan with the specific task of seeking reconciliation with angry and alienated Baloch activists. The second resolution demanded that the government should forego the practice of fixing oil prices on a weekly basis. Both the resolutions were adopted ‘unanimously.’
We all know that unanimous passage of these resolutions will neither alleviate the chaos in Balochistan nor help extending tangible relief to oil consumers. Yet after getting these resolutions passed, the PML-N can now proudly flaunt its ‘dedication’ to the objective of seeking resolution of the crisis in Balochistan and its ‘pro-active concern’ for inflation-burdened salaried and middle classes.
What will the government get in return? The answer, so far, remains unclear.
I rather suspect that from the coming Monday, media’s focus will intensely switch to the Senate proceedings. During the Senate sitting of Thursday, Faisal Raza Abdi had created quite a scene. Like a typical street-hardened agitator, he eventually forced the chair to let him talk about his ‘case’ Monday.
Since distancing himself from the Presidency around three months ago, Abdi had been constantly appearing on various talk shows of our 24/7 channels.
Talking one on one with anchors of his liking, he would criticise some lead members of the superior judiciary with tone, tenor and lingo of a compulsive agitator. That annoyed some law-abiding citizens, who feigned being extremely concerned over “visible attempts to malign the judiciary by reckless hawking of unsubstantiated allegations.” Some of them finally approached Islamabad High Court to extract a restraining order. Thanks to this order, Abdi is now denied airtime by all privately owned TV networks, almost with insidious-looking unanimity.
The story didn’t end there. Abdi is now claiming that on “explicit instructions” of some judicial officers, he is being forced to visit police and FIA officials, “with proofs,” to substantiate allegations that he had been hurling non-stop for many weeks.
He insists that police and other investigation agencies cannot “summon” him without informing the Senate chairman. After all, he is a duly elected member of the upper house of a uniquely sovereign parliament. Unless firmly stopped by none other than the President himself, Abdi is now all set to tell his side of the story during the Monday sitting of the Senate.
We have to wait and watch how much of his muck-throwing tirade is reported by our fiercely independent media.
In the context of parliament/judiciary tensions, another crisis is brewing within the parliamentary committee that deals with appointments in the superior judiciary. How to fill an expected vacancy in the Supreme Court is the question and some members of the parliamentary judicial commission seriously intend to resign, in case their recommendation in this respect were ignored or overruled.
Meantime, the Public Accounts Committee is building momentum to summon the registrar of the Supreme Court to submit annual accounts of his institution.
It may sound ironic, yet the fact remains that Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan, while acting as the Chairman of PAC, had taken the initiative of summoning the registrar of the Supreme Court for the said purpose around three years ago.
He had been snubbed with a formal letter. Instead of pursuing the matter, however, he resigned for many other reasons.
Nadim Afzal Chan, his successor, is in no mood to give in on this count and increasingly getting support from some opposition members sitting in the PAC. The government, for sure, had saved itself by agreeing to write ‘the letter’ as demanded by the Supreme Court. But serious tensions are now building between the judiciary and the legislature. The coming week will thus be very interesting to watch in this context.
Published in The Express Tribune, October 13th, 2012.
His rudely defiant statements regarding the proposed law for accountability of politicians had rather compelled some regulators of the parliamentary business to seriously consider the idea of getting the National Assembly prorogued after its meeting on Friday.
Things between the government and the opposition appeared to have changed somewhat, when Chaudhry Nisar surprised the press gallery by entering the house close to its adjournment. Noticing his arrival, Syed Khurshid Shah excitedly left his seat to welcome the opposition leader with gleeful smiles and warm embraces. The floor was instantly given to him when Nisar pressed the button for it and started wailing over the grim realities of Balochistan.
After his rhetorical lamenting, Zahid Hamid was allowed to present not one but two resolutions. The first expressed the desire for establishing a national commission on Balochistan with the specific task of seeking reconciliation with angry and alienated Baloch activists. The second resolution demanded that the government should forego the practice of fixing oil prices on a weekly basis. Both the resolutions were adopted ‘unanimously.’
We all know that unanimous passage of these resolutions will neither alleviate the chaos in Balochistan nor help extending tangible relief to oil consumers. Yet after getting these resolutions passed, the PML-N can now proudly flaunt its ‘dedication’ to the objective of seeking resolution of the crisis in Balochistan and its ‘pro-active concern’ for inflation-burdened salaried and middle classes.
What will the government get in return? The answer, so far, remains unclear.
I rather suspect that from the coming Monday, media’s focus will intensely switch to the Senate proceedings. During the Senate sitting of Thursday, Faisal Raza Abdi had created quite a scene. Like a typical street-hardened agitator, he eventually forced the chair to let him talk about his ‘case’ Monday.
Since distancing himself from the Presidency around three months ago, Abdi had been constantly appearing on various talk shows of our 24/7 channels.
Talking one on one with anchors of his liking, he would criticise some lead members of the superior judiciary with tone, tenor and lingo of a compulsive agitator. That annoyed some law-abiding citizens, who feigned being extremely concerned over “visible attempts to malign the judiciary by reckless hawking of unsubstantiated allegations.” Some of them finally approached Islamabad High Court to extract a restraining order. Thanks to this order, Abdi is now denied airtime by all privately owned TV networks, almost with insidious-looking unanimity.
The story didn’t end there. Abdi is now claiming that on “explicit instructions” of some judicial officers, he is being forced to visit police and FIA officials, “with proofs,” to substantiate allegations that he had been hurling non-stop for many weeks.
He insists that police and other investigation agencies cannot “summon” him without informing the Senate chairman. After all, he is a duly elected member of the upper house of a uniquely sovereign parliament. Unless firmly stopped by none other than the President himself, Abdi is now all set to tell his side of the story during the Monday sitting of the Senate.
We have to wait and watch how much of his muck-throwing tirade is reported by our fiercely independent media.
In the context of parliament/judiciary tensions, another crisis is brewing within the parliamentary committee that deals with appointments in the superior judiciary. How to fill an expected vacancy in the Supreme Court is the question and some members of the parliamentary judicial commission seriously intend to resign, in case their recommendation in this respect were ignored or overruled.
Meantime, the Public Accounts Committee is building momentum to summon the registrar of the Supreme Court to submit annual accounts of his institution.
It may sound ironic, yet the fact remains that Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan, while acting as the Chairman of PAC, had taken the initiative of summoning the registrar of the Supreme Court for the said purpose around three years ago.
He had been snubbed with a formal letter. Instead of pursuing the matter, however, he resigned for many other reasons.
Nadim Afzal Chan, his successor, is in no mood to give in on this count and increasingly getting support from some opposition members sitting in the PAC. The government, for sure, had saved itself by agreeing to write ‘the letter’ as demanded by the Supreme Court. But serious tensions are now building between the judiciary and the legislature. The coming week will thus be very interesting to watch in this context.
Published in The Express Tribune, October 13th, 2012.