Unending
War of Words in the Parliament
Both the
houses of parliament in Pakistan are in the grip of behaviour unbecoming for
the image of the representative institutions. Being tough and unruly is
generally recognised to be the pattern of bahaviour adopted by opposition
benches in parliament but it is the first time that such aggressive attitude is
seen to be employed by the government benches. The harsh attitude displayed by
treasury benches is the reflection of the aggressive stance taken by Imran Khan
during his political struggle against the Nawaz Sharif government but it is surprising
the he does not want to tone it down while being in government.
Government conduct
in parliamentary affairs is usually measured, reflecting the onus of governance
it entails compelling the prudent treasury benches to remain on their guard. They,
however, are always mindful of their role as the standard-bearers of democratic
rule and the significant impact of such understanding is reflected in their
restrained parliamentary behaviour. The current fracas witnessed in the
parliament has emphatically derailed the business of governance and the intention
of the ruling party to remain on the attack is causing incalculable harm to the
entire democratic exercise.
The extremely
unwieldy diatribes of the information minister constrained the Chairman Senate
to bar him from participating in the proceedings and gave birth to a barrage of
accusations and counter-accusations. Instead of showing remorse for his harsh
behaviour the information minister threatened to use other means at the disposal
of his party in government to tackle the ruling of Chairman Senate. Unfortunately
both sides are adamant about their positions and there appears to be no
multi-partisan approach to calm the tempers down.
The hard
line adopted by the ruling party is clearly designed to rattle the opposition and
appears to be a calculated move to hold it in its track. The attitude becomes all
the more dangerous because the ruling party has a history of defiling the parliamentary
traditions indicating that it has no respect for it. Time and again it enunciated
its disgust with parliamentary procedures and its leader deliberately avoided
attending its sessions even after the judicial commission gave a verdict that
election of 2013 were largely devoid of malpractices.
To add to the
worse is the singularly ineffective performance of the Speaker of the National
Assembly who tried to accommodate opposition but failed to gain its support
along with losing the sympathy of his party. He was never a national figure and
the role given to him is much higher than his abilities although he had served
as Speaker of KP provincial assembly. Same is the case with the new Chairman
Senate who was virtually a non-entity before being catapulted to one of the
highest positions in the state. Both these individuals are constrained by their
natural dispositions and may not be able to affect desired and amicable change.
The opposition
is also in disarray as its leader in National Assembly is kept under pressure
of accountability that has given a chance to the ruling party to deny him the
office of Chairman of Public Accounts Committee. The absence of clear-cut
majority in both houses of parliament has made it difficult for any party to
have a positive impact on governance. This is probably the most unexpected
situation faced by political element in the country and their tentative
performance is playing in the hands of non-democratic forces.
On the other
hand, the hanging sword of accountability is keeping the opposition in distress
and on the other hand the poor performance of the ruling party is pressing it
to show as much defiance as possible.
The effective
leaderships of all political groups in representative institutions have been
kept out of the process through employment of prohibitive and coercive methods and
the prime minister has never shown any intention in parliamentary politics. The
crucial absence of decisive political forces has left the field open to irresponsible
elements to continuously keep parliament under duress. The parliament is left
in the hands of second and third tier of party leadership that are the devoid
of any meaningful direction.
The situation
is surely not going to last as extended lack of quorum and widespread boycotts
will render the parliamentary business ineffective and will finally yield
results expected by non-democratic elements. It is surprising to observe that
political representatives have still not learnt the lesson that it is the parliamentary
strength that keeps them relevant in their chosen fields of activity. They have
failed to realise that the floor of the house is more powerful than any other
arrangement for governance and it is the only vehicle that can ensure their credibility
and political life.
