Why not ordinances?

Howsoever contentious political climate besetting parliament may be the business of state must persevere. And for that the government of the day must have authority to do law-making, both original and amended. So, every constitution provides for mechanisms to fill the gap when enactment by parliament is not at hand. In Pakistan that mechanism exists under the rubric of Ordinances under Article 89. According to it, the President may, except when the Senate or National Assembly is in session, if satisfied that circumstances exist which render it necessary to take immediate action, make and promulgate an ordinance as the circumstances may require. Even when this article was copiously amended under the 18th Amendment, the government's right to do law-making through ordinances has not been questioned. The said amendment has only curtailed the period of validity of an ordinance and its extension. But, curiously, the Opposition parties in Parliament have vociferously rejected the government's move to promulgate six ordinances, which are awaiting legislation by parliament. The said ordinances, according to Law Ministry, have been 'pending before various committees of the National Assembly in the form of bills since long'. Even if one may not agree with Prime Minister Imran Khan's take - expressed before TV anchors last December - that the government can run legislative business through presidential ordinances, one is stunned by the Opposition's stiff rejection of their validity. Perhaps, the principal rejectionists, PML (N) and PPP, may like to recall that 26 ordinances were promulgated each year on average when they were in power. Their rejection is all the more poignant when the main objective of the proposed ordinances is to alleviate hardships of ordinary people, particularly the women and the aggrieved who want timely issuance of succession certificates. But if this rejection stems from promulgation of benami transactions then that is understandable - but not acceptable.

In functional democracies, there is the government called treasury benches and on the other side of aisle is Opposition. They may differ on any and everything under the sun, but not on their mandated responsibility to do law-making for the people. If the Opposition is determined to undermine the parliament's duty to do legislation then why should it be there at all? How come it attends every session - and gets paid generously - but doesn't like the House to make laws for the people. Yes, the Opposition may oppose everything and propose nothing, but that doesn't mean it should hinder parliament from law-making. None of the six ordinances vouchsafes support for Imran Khan or his government; these are for general public's betterment. By withholding support for their promulgation the Opposition would be undermining the public interest. Ideally, these should have been duly discussed in parliament, and if improved in terms of their scope as outcome of discussion and debate the credit should have been the Opposition's. Thanks to such a contentious political mindset some 127 bills, including 102 private-member bills, are pending, leaving the government with no option but to seek presidential ordinances.

And, the people's right to be governed under the law gets doubly jeopardized when the Opposition has majority in the Senate whose approval is mandatory for enactment - excepting the financial matters. Traditionally, the upper house, which in case of Pakistan the Senate is, acts as repository of national wisdom and helps improve quality of legislations already passed by the lower house. Given our strong federal system, our Senate can refuse approval to bills passed by the National Assembly as well as propose its own legislations. But it is unacceptable that the Opposition should use its majority-strength in the Senate as permanent roadblock to law-making by the government. World-over, quite a few legislatures are bicameral, but law-making is not held hostage to lack of government majority in any of two chambers. Since the PTI government is also confronted with this dilemma it is left with no option but to go for ordinances, and in that case the Opposition would be exhibiting its respect for the Constitution by either helping the government to do enactment by parliament or accept its right to promulgate ordinances. It should not allow its anti-government politics deprive people of their right to have necessary laws.