Politics under ‘law of necessity’?

Resignations of the MNAs and MPAs of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) should have been accepted the day they were submitted. This is what the “law” says. Speakers of the National Assembly, Punjab and Sindh Assemblies have no legal authority “not to accept” their resignationa. But, the politics under the “law of necessity,” allowed the Speakers to adopt unlawful path. Thus, we once again set a wrong precedent. What is the way out and a way forward?
The position which the government and opposition except JUI-F and MQM are taking today is not legal but political. PTI has little to lose even if their resignations are accepted, which apparently looked a remote possibility. In the post-Judicial Commission scenario Imran and his party need something to make up of the loss of JC report. Acceptance of resignations can give them a breathing space as it means a kind of “mini-elections” on around 100 seats and push them to street politics, which after the JC report they have abandoned.
Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif adopted the right political approach by seeking opinion of all the heads of Parliamentary parties in the Parliament, but acceptance of resignations at this stage would not help the government as it would be seen as “politics of revenge.” Secondly, Speaker Ayaz Sadiq is in a most difficult position since Imran’s petition against his election is still pending in Election Tribunal. If he accept Imran’s resignation and loses his seat in Tribunal, it would be very embarrassing.
Mr Sadiq, also adopted an illegal course, though political under “law of necessity,” when he asked Mr Ishaq Dar and Syed Khursheed Shah to sort out this issue in a week. It is he who has to take a decision and not the government and opposition.
What is the legal remedy available if we don’t apply the “law of necessity” formula. It has to be under some kind of legal framework, which in this case does not exist. In fact the Speakers of NA and PAs acted in an illegal manner since resignationscan’t simply be declared withdrawn and they can’t be withdrawn unless the MNAs and MPAs gave in writing that they had given the resignation under “duress” which in Imran’s case can’t even be applied.
Therefore, in the present scenario PTI, the government and Speakers were at fault. Since PTI Chairman Imran Khan is still reluctant to go back to the NA, feeling embarrassment, he can ask the party to reconsider move to resign and return to the assemblies with fresh mandate. But, at the same time they could also demand resignation of the Speakers of NA, Punjab and Sindh for acting in an unlawful manner and playing politics on their “resignations.”
Unlike in the past (during dharna) resignations may give a new birth to PTI, as they can portray and play “muzloom card.” In the “mini-election,” Imran can put the government in a difficult position as street politics has its own dynamics. Secondly, PTI could create a political crisis by dissolving the Khyber Pakhtoonkhawa Assembly under protest, but for that PTI needs at least Jamaat-e-Islami’s support, which kept its distance in dharna politics and was against dissolving the KP Assembly.
But, the dilemma of the PTI is within the party, as many party leaders blamed those who went to JC without any homework. Though they did not directly blame the chairman, they were surprised that he still has faith in “wrong advisers.”
So, if PTI goes to the street as “divided House,” it would be difficult for them to draw the kind of crowd which used to come at D-Chowk. If they remain in the Parliament they may continue to face “taunting remarks.”
More embarrassing would be if they were asked to apologise, not for the JC report but for taking a wrong decision of resigning and insulting the Parliament. Knowing Imran Khan, he would prefer to stay out rather than tendering apology.
At the same time it is a fact that he is responsible for putting PTI in this position from the position of strength. One also knows that our politics needs clean politicians like Imran, but mere honesty can’t make you a good politician.
What an irony that Imran or his advisers have brought the party to a position, where their fate are in the hands of PML-N and its allies and they look towards PPP.
The position taken by the MQM and JUI-F, though legal, was because of PTI’s stance against the two. If resignations are accepted PTI can face a tough challenge from MQM in by-elections in Karachi, from PML-N in Punjab, though JUI is unlikely to give a real challenge in KP.
If PTI leaders are going all out against MQM, why the latter should withdraw its motion that resignations should be accepted. Both parties have held demonstrations against each other in London. JUI, Maulana Fazlur Rehman, knows that Imran has caused serious dent to his political base.
With local bodies elections in Punjab and Sindh due next month (if not postponed), both PTI and PML-N, will soon be gearing up for another political battle on a green wicket of Punjab in particular. In Karachi, it will be PTI-MQM or may be PTI-JI VS MQM.
So, if the PTI raised question that perhaps law of necessity applied on JC report, they look for similar law to retain their seats, because under the law they are no more MNAs and MPAs.
More interesting would be the post-acceptance scenario because their participation in the Senate elections could also be questioned.
Thus, in all probability the draconian “law of necessity,” would unofficially prevail, but this time to carry on the political process. The unanswered question is....How, under the law?
The writer is senior columnist and analyst of Geo, The News and Jang.