ast Friday, the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) barred former prime minister Imran Khan from holding public office for engaging in corrupt activities by selling gifts and hiding assets. Yousaf Raza Gillani, Muhammad Nawaz Sharif, two former premiers, and a host of other parliamentarians have already been disqualified. Yet, the Toshakhana case ruling has contributed to the discussion concerning political leadership in a nation still attempting to consolidate a minimalist procedural democracy — a regime with at least free and fair elections — since 1947. A comprehensive liberal democracy granting and ensuring full political rights and civil liberties appears like a distant dream.

The recent developments, however, renew some old concerns: can a politician be disqualified or barred from running for office and in doing so, constituents denied representation? Conversely, should there be no minimum requirements to become a parliamentarian or public official? The answers are not a simple yes or no. The doctrine of (dis)qualification, which at times involves intrigues across institutions to bring down unwanted political leaders and parties and prop up preferred ones, some say, is deemed the most rational answer in our context.

Seeking disqualification is one of the favourite recipes of both civilian political leaders and military dictators, who have never stopped attacking their political opponents since the country’s inception. This clotted our minimal procedural democracy in the 1970s, the 1990s, and the post-2008 period. In the current electoral period, 2018-2023, the Pakistan Democratic Movement (PDM) made several attempts and eventually was successful in dislodging the PTI’s chairman from premiership, and later in disqualifying him. In the preceding cycle, 2013-2018, the opposition comprising the PTI and the PPP successfully dislodged premier Nawaz Sharif. Still, in the 2008-2013 cycle, the PML-N was at the forefront of such efforts and sought credit for getting premier Gillani disqualified.

A survey from 1947 onward is necessary. Liaquat Ali Khan, the first premier, led the passage of the Public Representative Offices (Disqualification) Act through the first constituent assembly in 1949. This Act provided for barring public office holders for 15 years, if found guilty of misconduct. As an immigrant without constituency backing, Liaquat Ali Khan was criticised and accused of trying to consolidate his power through the Act by eliminating his political opponents. Gen Ayub Khan promulgated the Public Offices (Disqualification) Order in 1958, followed by the Elective Bodies (Disqualification) Order in 1959. The latter was enacted because the former did not apply to legislators. Ayub Khan extensively employed the latter order to eliminate his political challengers and individual politicians by implicating them in corruption cases. It roughly struck off 6,000 individuals, including 75 senior political leaders, for eight years.

Under Zia’s leadership, 17 new clauses were appended to Articles 62 and 63 of the 1973 constitution. These new codes required politicians to be of high moral and religious standing, including good character, adequate knowledge of Islamic teachings, sagacious, righteous and non-profligate and honest and ameen, and free of moral turpitude.

Zulfikar Ali Bhutto’s government enacted not only the Holders of Representative Offices (Prevention of Misconduct) Act and the Parliament and Provincial Assemblies (Disqualification from Membership) Act in 1976, but also incorporated Articles 62 and 63 in the 1973 constitution. These developments codified the disqualifications of politicians into the constitutional scheme.

The martial law junta of Gen Zia ul Haq further tightened the control over politics through two draconian accountability laws: Holders of Representative Offices (Punishment for Misconduct) Order and Parliament and Provincial Assemblies (Disqualification for Membership) Order. Moreover, under Zia’s leadership, 17 new clauses were appended to Articles 62 and 63 of the 1973 Constitution. These new codes required politicians to be of high moral and religious standing, including good character; have adequate knowledge of Islamic teachings; be sagacious, righteous and non-profligate and honest and ameen; and free of moral turpitude. Likewise, prejudice towards the ideology of Pakistan was incorporated as a reason for disqualification. Zia’s junta thus eliminated all politicians considered a potential challenge to his dictatorial regime.

The SC disqualified both Gillani and Sharif from serving as prime ministers; the former for failing to write to the Swiss authorities to initiate criminal proceedings against the then-Pakistani president, Asif Ali Zardari, and the latter for failing to disclose a salary from his son’s UAE-based company. Khan has allegedly been disqualified by the ECP for violating ‘intentionally and deliberately’ the terms of Sections 137, 167, and 173 of the Elections Act of 2017 by making false statements and incorrect declarations before the Commission in the statement of assets and liabilities he filed for the year 2020–21.

Most legal and political commentators view each disqualification decision through a partisan prism. Nevertheless, the current drama of disqualifications is being played at the theatre of institutions. Democracy, political rights and civil liberties remain the tragedy. It is still to be seen how the next episodes unfold.

Mazhar Abbas has a PhD in history from Shanghai University and is a lecturer at the GCU, Faisalabad. He can be contacted at mazharabbasgondal87@gmail.com. He tweets at @MazharGondal87

Bilal Hassan can be reached at bilalhassanat@gmail.com