Democratic traditions?
In a democratic dispensation the ruling party and the ones sitting in the opposition are considered to be two sides of the same coin, and the latter taken as a government in the waiting.
Both the ruling party and the opposition are under obligation to consolidate democracy, adhere to the constitution, have a bipartisan approach on issues of national interest and maintain a working relationship even during periods of acrimony between them. If we apply this yardstick to judge the state of affairs in our country, it is not hard to draw the inference that the ruling party and the opposition have failed on all the foregoing counts. Responsibility for this failure lies more with the government than the opposition.
During the last one and half years of its rule the PTI has walked the path of confrontation with the opposition, and the latter has paid back in the same coin. The result is that the government has not been able to carry out the legislative business through parliament. Instead, parliament has been a forum of shouting matches between legislators from both sides, culminating in rumpus and disorder.
The government has been doing its legislative business mainly through issuance of presidential ordinances, violating the constitutional obligations to resort to such measures only when parliament is not in session or there is an emergency situation requiring to be dealt immediately. It has almost made parliament dysfunctional.
The prime minister who as leader of the House is required to attend the proceedings of the National Assembly has chosen to stay away from it in spite of his pledge that he would ensure his presence in the parliament to answer the questions of the opposition twice in a week.
The government is not bothered about sticking to the constitution when it comes to the requirement of convening both houses of parliament for a specific number of days during a parliamentary year as required under Article 61 of the constitution. This is particularly true in the case of the Senate. The opposition is right in pointing out the non-serious attitude of the government towards parliament. The government does not have a majority in the Senate so it feels shy of convening its sessions as per the constitutional requirement.
The PTI government actually never tried to build working relations with the opposition in the first place. It found it difficult to transition from the mindset and approach it had acquired during its opposition years, and preferred to adopt a combative rather than cooperative posture towards the opposition. Democracy does not work like that. In view of the challenges faced by the country, it is absolutely imperative for the government and the opposition to be on the same page so as to deal with them.
Legislation is a very serious business requiring exhaustive, deep and serious debate in parliament with both the treasury and opposition benches contributing to the national cause. In the current environment of animosity between the government and opposition parties, which allegedly are being subjected to selective accountability for political vendetta, the negative attitude of the government will be put to a severe test when parliament is convened to legislate on the issue of the extension in tenure of the army chief
Supreme Court.
It will be a tall order for a parliament that has failed to hold a meaningful and civil debate on any issue since it came into being, thanks to the attitude of the prime minister who does not seem to even want to shake hands with any opposition leader.
The prime minister is better advised to behave like a politician wedded to the norms of democracy and with unflinching commitment to uphold the constitution. The government has been unable to appoint the two members of the Election Commission of Pakistan as well as the chief election commissioner. The posts fell vacant in January due to the retirement of members from Sindh and Balochistan. Under the constitution these posts were required to be filled with 45 days. The CEC retired on December 6.
as ordered by
the
The government should have made a move before the retirement of these members and the CEC to select their replacements. The non-appointment of the two members so far is a continued breach of the constitution but the government does seem to care about it and is prepared to sacrifice everything at the altar of the ego of the prime minister.
The parliamentary committee charged with the task to finalize these appointments is also facing a stalemate on the issue due to the unaccommodating attitude of the government, forcing it to take the issue to the Supreme Court. The government did try to appoint the two members through a presidential ordinance - in breach of the constitution. However, it is satisfying to note that the court struck it down and advised the government to go by the constitution.