In a move that has rightly raised eyebrows and outrage, Punjab Assembly Speaker Malik Ahmad Khan has filed a disqualification reference against 26 opposition MPAs for alleged “unparliamentary conduct” during the budget session last month. While the Punjab Assembly did witness chaos and inappropriate behaviour, which was rightly punished through suspensions, the leap from censure to disqualification marks a rather disturbing and disproportionate overreach of authority. The attempt to justify the disqualification reference by invoking Article 63, the disqualification of Nawaz Sharif and a quote from Justice Asif Saeed Khosa borders on the surreal. Especially ironic is the decision to lean on constitutional clauses the same people have previously criticised. If the past is any lesson, such selective application of legal tools often ends up undermining democratic norms rather than upholding them.
There is, simply put, no constitutional or democratic justification for de-seating elected representatives based on bad behaviour in the House, however egregious that behavior may be. Parliamentary sessions are often raucous, sometimes even unruly. But democracies survive through institutional restraint, not vengeful maneuvering. The opposition MPs in question have already faced punitive action and any further attempt to strip them of their mandate risks alienating not just political opponents, but the very electorate that put them in office. Even as the government has extended an olive branch to the opposition by calling for dialogue, the reference submitted to the Election Commission stands as a contradiction to that offer. You cannot build a bridge while lighting a match underneath it. Democratic institutions should certainly not become theatres for settling political scores but platforms for deliberation, however noisy that deliberation may sometimes be. This is the same Punjab Assembly where physical altercations have taken place. Yet no such extreme actions were taken in the past. Why now? And why only opposition members? One cannot help but feel that political expediency, rather than principled leadership, is driving this decision.
To be clear: the conduct of the 26 MPAs was indefensible. But the punishment must be proportionate and rooted in rule of law. In democracies across the world, principles like fairness, objectivity and due process are held sacrosanct. The Nolan Principles, which outline ethical standards for public office-holders, emphasise decisions made "impartially, fairly and on merit". It is these very values that are under threat when elected members face expulsion for disrupting a session. We are already navigating a political climate where hybrid governance models have eroded democratic processes. But even in such an environment, some lines must not be crossed. De-seating members for expressing dissent, even in a crude form, opens the door to authoritarian impulse cloaked in constitutional garb. The best way forward would be to retract the reference, re-engage in dialogue and seek resolution through democratic means. Politics of exclusion cannot coexist with the principles of democracy.