EDITORIAL: Add the word ‘politics’ to the popular phrase ‘all’s fair in love and war’ and it best describes the developments on our national scene. Earlier this month, PTI chief minister of Gilgit-Baltistan (GB) was ousted in a fake degree case imitated by a PPP MPA.
At the same time the federal coalition government worked over time to cause desertions in the PTI through persuasions, possibly coercion, and quite likely the tried and tested tactic of horse trading to form a forward bloc in the party.
On Thursday, a leader of that renegade group, Haji Gulbar Khan, got elected as the new chief minister of GB with the support of PML-N, PPP and JUI-F while 12 MPAs from the PTI, Majlis Wahdat-i-Muslimeen and Islamic Tehreek boycotted the election.
It may be recalled in a somewhat similar situation PTI prime minister of Azad Kashmir Ilyas Tanveer was disqualified in a contempt of court case, and succeeded by PPP’s Chaudhry Anwar-ul Haq.
Such changes brought about by political maneuverings are not only undesirable but indefensible. Those in favour of the idea of forward bloc, like in India, where the law allows it, argue that it prevents parties from backsliding on their agendas, going against party ideology or taking a stand on new issues contrary to public interest. But more often than not, deserters act out of personal considerations rather than principles of policy, as in the case of the two above-mentioned instances.
Yet, it was to stop horse-trading and indiscipline that the two parties involved in staging political ‘coups’ in GB and Azad Kashmir had introduced amendments to Article 63-A of the Constitution, making defections clause applicable to members voting against party line in the election of the prime minister or a chief minister as well as during a vote of no-confidence, a money bill, or a constitutional amendment. The Constitution is silent on the question of forward blocs, however.
Since it is open to interpretation, those in power have frequently been creating such disruptions in rival parties by cutting deals with their pliable members and putting pressure on those vulnerable due to some personal weakness. It is imperative therefore, that the legal dubiety in the political discourse is cleared for a proper, healthy functioning of the democratic process.
The people generally tend to vote on party basis. Their mandate ought to be respected. Fairness demands that if a legislator thinks his/her party’s policy is wrong they should resign and seek re-election either independently or on some political platform and let the voters decide, if it is good or bad. The people’s right to choose who should represent them in the assemblies must not be tampered with.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2023
Comments
Comments are closed for this article.