he Pakistan Institute of Legislative Development and Transparency (PILDAT) is an independent think tank that focuses on political and public policy research and legislative strengthening. It aims to strengthen democracy and democratic institutions through its work. The PILDAT also carries out a periodic performance review of the parliament and provincial assemblies. The News on Sunday spoke to Ahmed Bilal Mehboob, the PILDAT president, on the recent parliamentary and political crises. Excerpts follow.

he News on Sunday (TNS): What do you make of the political situation in the country that developed in the run up to the no confidence motion against the then Prime Minister Imran Khan? How did this crisis develop?

Ahmed Bilal Mehboob (ABM): I think it developed because Imran Khan was unable to carry his party colleagues and coalition partners with him. He was a bit too aloof from these members and was not following a political engagement with them. This is a part of a leader’s responsibilities – to carry party members and partners with him. He failed in that. His temperament did not allow him to make those engagements on a day-to-day basis. Moreover, his party did not have effective political managers like Jahangir Tareen. After Tareen’s exit, nobody could manage it.

Also, in the wake of public backlash due to rising inflation and poor economy, elected members of the ruling alliance started facing questions in their constituencies. The combination of these two things along with the persistence of the opposition that had been cornered by Khan (as he had pushed the opposition too deep into a corner) that for their own survival, they had no option but to fight back. The opposition managed to convince colleagues and coalition partners of the ruling regime to try a move that could oust Khan.

TNS: How has this crisis impacted the working of the parliament, and the politics of the country?

ABM: You see a no confidence motion is not a very common thing in Pakistani parliamentary system. I think it will become a more frequent phenomenon in the years to come, now that people perceive it as doable. In the past, only two efforts were made and those were unsuccessful.

The first impact we will see is that there will be very few stable governments unless the leading parties have strong majorities and are able to stay strong with their own resources. But even if a party is strong, what is the guarantee that people in the party stay loyal to the party and the party chief and do not collude with others to oust the PM? So, I think the success of this motion has triggered new uncertainty and instability in Pakistani politics. As far as its political impact is concerned, I think among the legal elite of the country and those focusing constitutional sophistication, Khan was never popular. He was popular among a certain segment of the population i.e., the youth, the overseas Pakistanis and, generally, people who do not look at constitution in a deep sense. Khan might not be popular among the people who are very sophisticated constitutionalists but among the general public, I don’t think any of this has produced any negative impact. In fact, his supporters have praised the fight back “till the last ball”. So, basically among his constituency these tactics have played rather well.

TNS: Do you think the recent series of political events has affected or will affect parliamentary supremacy in the country?

ABM: Certainly, this crisis has affected parliamentary supremacy. It is very clear that you cannot deviate from specific constitutional provisions, especially the time table and details of the no-confidence motion and how it has to be treated. It was a very important legal question whether the speaker, in his discretion, can throw a no-confidence motion out rather than allowing the National Assembly members to decide its fate. I think a very important legal point has been settled that the speaker alone cannot do so. The second important thing that has been settled is that when a clear violation of the constitution is seen, the courts can interfere in the working of the parliament. So, the point that the parliament has a certain independence which the court cannot tamper with has not been sustained. These are two very important takeaways from the court case.

TNS: During the court hearings about the no-confidence motion and the defection clauses, it emerged that there were certain lacunae in the constitution, rules and procedures. Do you think there is a need to bring amendments to address these?

ABM: I personally feel that both these provisions are very clearly laid out in the constitution, law and assembly rules. Taking these issues to the court was merely an attempt to create confusion about them. No further clarity was needed except for a couple of things. For example, what will be the period within which the election of a new PM will be conducted? It was important that this be spelled out. This time the court has spelled it out saying that you cannot postpone/ prorogue the session without an election of a new PM. It has also said that you will immediately hold the election for PM. This needs to be built into the constitution.

Secondly, a question has emerged regarding the practicality of the PM holding office after a no-confidence motion. There was practically no chief executive until the new prime minister was elected. This was the first time such a situation came up as the motion succeeded for the first time in the country’s history. These things need to be fine-tuned. But I think the main provisions are very clearly laid out.

As far as defections are concerned, it is not even the intention of the constitution and constitution makers to prevent members of a political party from voting against their own party directions. Rather, the constitution allows them to do that. In some cases, they have to pay the price in the form of being de-seated. Such clauses are part of democratic norms and indicate that the leader of a party does not have to be a dictator. We have the defection clause but most developed democracies do not. In the Westminster system, from where we borrowed a lot, MPs can vote for anyone and they cannot be de-seated for it. These safeguards in Pakistan do not mean that one cannot do anything against one’s party. This is part of the democratic system and shows we are not a regimented system. It is part of the democratic architecture of the country.

TNS: How do you see the current intention of the Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf (PTI) to resign from the National Assembly? How do you think it will pan out for the parliament and the party itself?

ABM: I think this is not a beneficial move for anyone – neither the country nor the Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf, nor even the new government. It will be a very unwise decision on PTI’s part. They may be successful in creating some kind of a crisis which the new government may or may not be able to overcome. But I think in the process, the PTI itself will suffer. What if the government appoints two members of the Election Commission of Pakistan and there is no one available from the PTI to offer a suggestion? This can also happen in the appointments of the National Accountability Bureau chairman and the caretaker prime minister. The government will have no input from the PTI because they will not be in the parliament. I hope better sense will prevail and the PTI will not resign from the National Assembly.

The writer is a staff reporter. He can be reached at vaqargillani@gmail.com. He tweets at @waqargillani