Parliamentary sovereignty

How can we import some extra-terrestrial system from the heavens to replace our brand -and breed- of democracy just in order to satisfy the demands of some lobbies that are not happy with the prevalent system of ‘majority has the authority’ and ‘supremacy of the people or people’s representative body, the parliament’?

The social polarization and schisms in public and political opinion resulting out of hot debates surrounding the re-election of former Prime Minister, Muhammad Nawaz Sharif, as president of Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) in a manner that just cannot be termed undemocratic on any democratic standard in force throughout the world, is touching alarming heights. 

In parliamentary democracy, wherever it is in force or practiced, parliament is the supreme or the superior most body of the state.

This pillar is considered supreme because it represents the people and their opinion. And, in democracy, all the decisions and actions are taken in the name of the people. Ironically, even the dictators claim that their interventions are done for the sake of people as well as the people’s rights (the dictators usually plead that they overthrow elected governments to protect the people’s rights and ameliorate their lot).

Then, no logic can deny the claim that the parliament is superior being the public representative body. The critics of this theory sometimes drag the ‘comparison of institutions’ powers’ in this debate although it is unreasonable.

Every institution draws its power from the people’s will which is present before us in the form of a Constitution, the same constitution that was framed by the people of Pakistan through their representatives enjoying public mandate. Democracy is all about public mandate and parliamentary democracy is all about parliamentary sovereignty.

If one goes through the annals of parliamentary history, one comes across many examples and quotations of parliamentary sovereignty in many systems including the mother of democratic systems namely the British democratic system. In United Kingdom, parliamentary sovereignty was conceived during the period of William and Mary who came to the throne on the condition that they would give supremacy to the parliament, putting the royal prerogative under the parliament.

According to British jurist and constitutional theorist.A.V. Dicey (he has been most widely known as the author of Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution), “The principle of parliamentary sovereignty means neither more nor less than this: namely that parliament thus defined has, under the English constitution ,the right to make or unmake any law whatever; and further, that no person or body is recognized by the law of England having a right to override or set aside the legislation of parliament”.

On the same issue, another renowned British dignitary, Sir Ivor Jennings (1959), metaphorically said : “Parliament could legislate imposition of a ban smoking on the streets of Paris and parliament can legally make a man into a woman” while Sir Leslie Stephens (1882) had earlier stated that parliament could legislate to have blue-eyed babies put to death.

Neither all these metaphors and observations mean creating despots among the parliamentarians nor do they really want blue-eyed babies (large number of Britons are blue-eyed) to be put to death. It is also not intended to encroach upon the powers of other pillars of the state.

The only objective of going for such examples is to press upon the supremacy and sovereignty of the people’s will or the public mandate based on the firm belief that people, being the ultimate repository of state authority/power as well as the mainspring of power, cannot act detrimental to their own basic, vital interests or the vital interests of the state.

This principle of parliamentary sovereignty still dominates all other considerations throughout the democratic world, despite the lapse of decades, since the inception of parliamentary democracy.

Not going into any debate about the apex court’s decision against Muhammad Nawaz Sharif, the latest act of legislation coming to the fore in the form of Election Bill 2017, is a legislative piece adopted through the prescribed procedure laid down in the Constitution. It will also not be in the fitness of things to interpret this move as a confrontational move targeting any other national institution.

Such allegations could have been justified had the majority in the two Houses of the Parliament not voted in favour of this Bill.

If any political party wants any individual to head the party, it is the sole prerogative or sweet will off the party men and if the parliament, as a public representative body, wants a piece of legislation to be adopted after following the set procedures within the ambit of the Constitution, there is nothing unusual about it.