close
Tuesday March 19, 2024

A web of deception

By Raoof Hasan
March 25, 2022

For the last couple of weeks, the country has been mired in an ever-thickening web of deceit and deception and there appears to be no way out before the vote of no-confidence drama has been dispensed with. After the initial shockwaves for the government, the clouds have slowly drifted away and mellow sun rays have begun to filter through, suggesting that the tables may actually be turned on the opposition.

Over the last many months, the strategy boards had been coloured in strange permutations and combinations regarding when the long march/vote of no-confidence would be moved. One projection was followed by another, but it actually took months to materialise — and that, too, in a manner that has not raised any hopes for strengthening the institution of democracy in the country.

The vote of no-confidence is rooted in incentivising changing of allegiance by government members of parliament, some of whom have now publicly vowed to support the move by the opposition. This comes in the backdrop of the much-trumpeted proclamation by the opposition parties to ensure respect for the vote. The move by these members is in sheer violation of Article 63A of the constitution which deals with the disqualification of a sitting member of parliament on the grounds of defection “in case, as member of a parliamentary party composed of a single political party in the House, he votes, or abstains from voting in the House contrary to the direction by the parliamentary party to which he belongs in relation to the election of the Prime Minister or the Chief Minister, a money bill or a constitutional amendment bill, and a vote of confidence or a vote of no-confidence”. The support of these members has been allegedly secured in exchange for payment of huge sums of money to each and the promise of other inducements such as ministerial positions and party tickets for the next elections.

Simultaneously, the opposition parties have also been paying homage to the coalition partners of the government to woo them away in exchange for promises to be made chief ministers and governors of provinces and given slots in the cabinet that they hope to put together once the vote of no-confidence has been carried by the House.

After the initial chants of an assured success, the euphoria appears to be fading away and a realisation gradually setting in that, after all, it may not be such an easy move to carry through, particularly when the modus operandi smells of unholy espousals.

Instead of hitting the opposition back in the same coin by trying to break their legislators away from them in exchange for inducements, the government opted for the legal way to deal with the challenge. First, they sent notices to their parliamentarians who had claimed publicly that they would be siding with the opposition in the vote of no-confidence move. They have been given seven days to respond, failing which they will be expelled from the party and their cases sent to the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) for disqualification.

Simultaneously, the government has moved a presidential reference asking the Supreme Court (SC) to interpret Article 63A of the constitution whereby a member can be disqualified if he or she votes against the directions of the head of the parliamentary party. Moved under Article 186 of the constitution, the reference asks the SC how “Article 63A should be interpreted, adopted and implemented to achieve the constitutional objective of curbing the menace of defection and purification of the electoral process and democratic accountability”. The presidential reference has further asked the apex court whether “a member engaged in the constitutionally prohibited and morally reprehensible act of defection could claim a vested right to have his vote counted and given equal weight, or there existed a restriction to exclude such tainted votes from the count”.

Alluding to the need for undertaking measures within the existing constitutional and legal framework to curb, deter and eradicate the cancerous practice of defection, floor-crossing and vote-buying, the presidential reference suggests that the objective could be redeemed by a “robust and purposive interpretation of the provisions of the constitution, more specifically articles 17, 62 and 63A”.

In a particularly damning blow to the opposition’s plans, Justice Munib Akhtar remarked that, according to the procedure to move a vote of no-confidence against the prime minister, “a member’s individual vote had no status”. He further recalled that “the apex court had already made similar observations in cases related to former prime ministers Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif”. Hence, it could be safely concluded that, after joining a political party, the right of vote by a member is only considered collectively”.

The presidential reference makes for a very interesting and consequential move. It is going to look into the malaise of defection which has plagued the prevalent system throughout its years of existence. This menace is not only against the spirit of democracy; it is also contrary to the constitution of the country. It is widely believed that, without the elimination of this scourge, it would remain improbable for democracy to catch roots.

Additionally, a decision by the SC will also look into the possibility whether a constitutional provision could be limited to its literal interpretation in terms of punishing a person after s/he has committed a crime or, when the intent becomes clear as is the case in the current instance, it could be implemented proactively in order to prevent the crime from being perpetrated. The second interpretation, if provisioned, would play a major role in cleansing the system and making it effective in terms of prevention of defection and a number of other ills so widely prevalent in the parliamentary domain. If, however, the SC subscribes to a post-crime action only, it would further encourage the act of floor crossing. This would be a brutal assault on the foundations of democracy which have already been rendered excessively wobbly because of the criminal conduct of its practitioners and the hierarchical manner in which political parties are run in the country.

A huge responsibility rests on the shoulders of the SC. It relates to how democracy is to be shaped in the country: whether it remains hostage in the hands of the criminal mafias who have manipulated parliament to advance their personal interests, or whether it becomes a powerful constituent to legislate for strengthening democracy and constitutionalism, thus transforming the fate of the impoverished communities which have suffered both pain and shame at the hands of the manipulators who pay little attention to human afflictions.

It may also be time for the SC to rewrite its own history which has been mired in controversy. That lingering legacy of miscarriage of justice needs to be buried.

The writer is the special assistant to the PM on information, a political and security strategist, and the founder of the Regional Peace

Institute. He tweets@RaoofHasan