EDITORIAL: We have a representative democracy in which the elected representatives’ performance in the legislature determines the quality of governance of the state. The executive derives its legitimacy from its ability to command the support of legislature and being accountable to it is as well. Did our present National Assembly during its third year, which ended last week, live up to the expectations of voters? A report released by the Pakistan Institute of Legislative Development and Transparency (Pildat) has pointed out that the National Assembly performed better during the outgoing parliamentary year as compared to the year before, yet it fell far short of its mandated responsibility. It does not see any improvement in the attendance of members, including Prime Minister Imran Khan and the Leader of Opposition, Shehbaz Sharif. If the Leader of the House attended only seven out of total 79 sittings the Leader of Opposition did not attend more than 10 sittings. The Leader of Opposition during the last Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) government, Syed Khursheed Shah of Pakistan People’s Party (PPP), attended 75 percent of sittings. The National Assembly had to be adjourned 24 times for lack of quorum, although lack of required presence of members in the house was pointed out in 49 sittings. Where the house fared better as compared to the previous year was a decrease in the number of Ordinances laid by the executive in the assembly: 24 against 31 the year before.
There are quite a few other metrics that Pildat reported quite clearly. It was, however, found to be a bit cautious insofar as its description of atmospherics in the National Assembly is concerned. According to it, for example, “While politics in Pakistan has not yet fully evolved to be rid of political rancour the National Assembly has been extraordinarily confronted with a relatively high degree of political toxicity which was largely absent from previous assemblies”. It was in fact a year of disorganized and unrestricted situations resembling free-for-alls, to say the least. That such rowdy atmospherics is not Pakistan-specific is a fact. But the painful fact is that proceedings were generally found to be devoid of serious debates and discussions on some highly important national issues. In fact, members from both sides of the aisle preferred to say, what they ought to have said on the floor of the House, outside the premises of parliament. Little did, however, they realize that they were elected to present their voters’ hopes and despairs within the four walls of parliament. How unfortunate it is that the nation spends billions to send them to parliament, but they prefer to express their opinions in streets with a view to proving their allegiance to their top leadership.
The executive draws its power from the legislature. Imran Khan is prime minister today only because he was elected by the National Assembly to be so. That is also the case of the federal ministers and ministers of state. That they should shun the floor of parliament and prefer to make policy statements at non-elected platform is something that can be safely described as patently undemocratic. The Pildat report has also spoken about those ministers and parliamentary secretaries who do not ensure their presence during ‘Question Hour’ sessions or adjournment motions concerning their portfolios. “During the third parliamentary year, presiding officers severely criticised the absence of relevant ministers and parliamentary secretaries at least on four occasions,” according to the report. The Pildat report, however, does not tell us whether those presiding officers have helped improve the situation.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2021