Questions of politics

The Supreme Court’s larger bench hearing suo-motu proceedings regarding the delay in the announcement of a date for elections in Punjab and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa is all set to announce its verdict today. Leaving aside the jurisprudential questions and what the court may or may not say, this whole matter points also to the original sin: just how little consensus there is among the country's political stakeholders. This could all have been avoided if the political system understood that a political issue should ideally be resolved in the political sphere. When the PTI dissolved two provincial assemblies in January, the normal and constitutional path would have been for the governors of both provinces to announce the election dates because the constitution stipulates that elections be held within 90 days. Unfortunately, both governors dilly dallied on this issue while the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) has been reduced to running between the governors and the president of Pakistan -- all the while being targeted by the PTI for the delay in the dates. The ECP had suggested dates to the governors; the commission's main responsibility is to conduct the elections once dates are announced.

Meanwhile, it is quite glaringly obvious that the government is in no mood to hold these elections separately from the general elections that are supposed to be held in October. Political observers have pointed out time and again that due to the economic crisis and the government’s perceived unpopularity because of that, it wouldn’t want elections in two provinces at this time. Legal experts though are quick to -- rightly -- point out that elections do not depend on a government’s willingness or unwillingness: the government is bound by the constitution. The PTI too has its own set of issues: unwilling to talk and negotiate with the government, preferring political chaos than resolution, and opting for judicial solutions than political ones -- though even in that case when it comes to Imran Khan's cases, the party had rather even the justice system accommodate its leader in unprecedented fashion. In all this, what we have tragically lost is the sanctity of parliament. The PTI seems to only believe in parliament when it is in power, otherwise it prefers to remain outside the system. The ruling coalition too has been guilty of this in past decades. Our political stakeholders must realize -- the PTI, in particular -- that politics is the art of the possible and that ideological differences do not mean lifetime personal enmities.

When political parties refuse to sit together, a constitutional crisis is bound to happen. This is where the judiciary steps in, especially in Pakistan. It was just last year when the courts reinterpreted Article 63A. In any democracy, parliament is where matters are debated -- not on the streets as we are witnessing today, and the courts are brought in only when matters reach a dire situation. Here we have the political class running off to the courts almost as soon as there's a whiff of political conflict, instead of working to come to a mutual agreement. And it’s not just the political stakeholders; the superior judiciary too seems to be facing its share of internal divisions as seen in Justice Qazi Faez Isa's question yesterday to the registrar over how a bench could be reshuffled. These divisions, conflicts and open fissures are neither good for politics, nor democracy nor justice. It is time the courts and the political class both resolved their respective internal issues so that political and jurisprudential matters are tackled within their respective domains.