Purpose of parliament

Parliament is supreme. It should be, but is it? This is a question that is debated endlessly. Answers to this question depend on who is replying. Parliamentarians blame many forces. The parliamentarians on treasury benches blame the opposition and the opposition blames the government and the undemocratic forces for weakening the parliament to deface democracy. The public blames all of them as they feel that the parliament is GT (get together) of those who party at the expense of the taxpayer. The consensus, however, is that the parliament has yet to do what it is supposed to do.
The logical question is what is it supposed to do? The constitution of Pakistan specifies the role of the parliament, "The National Assembly of Pakistan is the country's sovereign legislative body. It embodies the will of people to let themselves be governed under the democratic, multi-party Federal Parliamentary System". The words are telling. "It embodies the will of the people". Does it really embody the will of people or does it embody the will of parliamentarians? But then the will of parliamentarians is supposed to be aligned with the will of people. But is it? These are the doubts that have made the perception of parliament as a house of elites rather than the house of the people of Pakistan.
In a survey PILDAT conducted on the fourth year perception of last government, i.e., 2016, the results showed a constant decline in the various functional areas of the parliament. According to the scorecard of the National Assembly, performance instead of improving deteriorated in the later year compared to 2015. The rating was on six criteria, foreign policy involvement, legislation, Accountability, oversight, representativeness, transparency. The scores ranged between 50% as highest given to representativeness and 32% lowest given to accountability. This is an indication of why there exists such a negative perception of the parliament.
Performance is measured against some standards. Parliament and its role needs to be treated with the same effective mechanism as in other professional institutions where their role is defined by the vision and goals laid out by its creators. In Pakistan's case we take the founder Quaid-e-Azam's vision as the standard against which we need to measure the parliament. The Quaid in his first speech in the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan on 11th August 1947 outlined 3 main priorities that a Parliament that is sovereign must pursue. He stated "the first duty of a Government is to maintain law and order so that the life, property and religious beliefs can be properly protected". The second priority is "One of the biggest curses from which India is suffering - I do not say that other countries are free from it, but, I think, our condition is much worse - is bribery and corruption". The third priority he defined was "the evil of nepotism and jobbery. This evil must be crushed relentlessly".
Taking this first address of the Quaid it is very clear that the top three priorities of the National Assembly should have been law and order of its citizens, bribery and corruption and nepotism and jobbery. However, if we measure the parliament performance on these three goals it is found wanting. Legislation to ensure the security of people in most areas like health, food, safety security are still not of the level that is found in more developed democracies. Similarly, accountability to protect taxpayers' money has really been kept on the back burner. Unfortunately, laws and oversight to ensure merit and transparency have been a topic that is rarely a priority in the National Assembly.
So, what has the parliament been doing all this time? They have been doing some good work. The 18th amendment with all its criticism has helped power devolve into provinces. Some sound laws for child protection, public smoking, business legislations etc have been produced by the various tenure assemblies but much more needs to be done to qualify the parliament for its title of being "supreme". It will only be so if the time, money and resources spent in the parliamentary affairs produced more social justice and welfare for the masses. In the last ten and half years of democratic terms more focus has been given to pass laws to protect the parliamentarians than the public.
If you are a member parliament you can be jailed but allowed to attend sessions. Your own lodges or ministerial enclaves are declared as jails and you are given protocol and privileges at the expense of the taxpaying public. Jailed parliamentarians are also allowed to become heads of Standing Committees. This is shocking as Standing Committees have suo motu powers and are using this to exert pressure on institutions that are a check on parliamentarians abuse of taxpayer's money. The latest example was that the Public Accounts Committee head who is undergoing accountability in NAB cases calls NAB and tells them that they are accountable to PAC. It may be unethical and immoral but legal-as laws have been made by the same lawmakers who want to pass laws to legalize law breaking.
The major focus of the new parliament should be to create a Strategic Plan for the year 2019 to 2023. This plan must highlight the vision, mission, values, and major goals of the parliament. From the more modern Parliament of Scotland to the more nascent parliament of South Africa all have these 'strategic' plans that outline what the direction and key areas of priority are. The South African parliament has made the vision as "An activist and responsive people's Parliament that improves the quality of lives of South Africans and ensures equality in our society". They have also outlined six values on which the parliament would stand and live by Integrity, professionalism, team work, openness, responsiveness, and accountability.
The problem with politics in Pakistan is that entry into parliament is entry into a privilege land. The book of rules and privileges is mostly referred to when what the parliamentarians think is their entitled privilege is in danger of being changed. Stark example of this is the criticism on converting the Prime Minister's House to a university. Many parliamentarians were more worried that when their party comes into power the PM's House will not be a privilege they enjoy. Very few of them have worried or protested against the deprivation of nearly 2.5 million children being out of school that is a violation of Article 25A of the constitution. Without an accountability plan and implementation, Walter Bagehot will sound true when he says, "A parliament is nothing more than a big meeting of more or less idle people".
(The writer can be reached at [email protected])