he recent election of the Punjab chief minister and the controversy surrounding it have given rise to a fierce debate over the role and powers of the head of a political party.

Is it the head of the political party or the head of its parliamentary party that can issue binding instructions to its MNAs/MPAs during the election for the prime minister, chief minister, speaker and deputy speaker?

Several jurists have written on the issue and tried to provide answers to many queries. However, the political science perspectivehas been conspicuously missing.

The apex court’s decision determining the prerogative of the party heads vis-à-vis heads of the parliamentary parties will have wide-ranging consequences for the viability and unity of political parties. It will also have serious repercussions on the national political system as a whole. The party heads, in future, may see heads of their parliamentary parties as the principal contenders for power within the parties, not to speak of forces outside those parties. Such an unfortunate outcome may further undermine the tenure of the elected chief executives of the country and its provinces.

Secondly, what is the status of a parliamentary party within a party? The parliamentary party is neither the actual party norgives birth to the party. Actually, it is the other way around. The political party gives birth to its parliamentary parties. In parliamentary systems, the parliament gives birth to the Executive and the latter is answerable to the former. Similarly, a parliamentary party of a party is answerable to the party. In the same vein, the parliamentary party is answerable, along with its head, to the party and its head.

Thirdly, what is the relationship between the head of the parliamentary party and the party head? By awarding tickets, the party entrusts the ticket-holders with the business of representing the party in the parliament or the provincial assembly. Members of a party representing it in nationaland provincial assemblies and the Senate are its trustees. If any of them loses the party’s confidence, the party canrightfully replace them just as the Executive, represented by a cabinet,is replaced on losing the confidence of the parliament.

Fourthly, who leads a party? Obviously, it is the party leader that leads the party as well as its parliamentary appendage. The framers of the constitution did not consider the parliamentary party as autonomous or separate from the party that gives it birth. They were well aware of the relationship between the party and its parliamentary party. The phrase, parliamentary party,also meant the party in general, as a whole. In other words, a party was a parliamentary party if it was represented in the parliament. The parties not represented in the parliament were non-parliamentary parties.

Fifth, who provides the ‘party line’? The party leadership or the party head provides party line and not the parliamentary party or its head. ‘Party line’ refers to (a) party policy on a certain issue or matter, and (b) a list of the candidates for an election prepared, in accordance with any manner of consultation, by the party. Party heads, generally, have a greater say in both matters i.e. in the formulation of party policy and preparation of lists of candidates. In practice, parliamentary heads are nominated and/or appointed by the party heads and represent their respective parties on behalf ofthe party heads in various meetings and other matters within the House. If a parliamentary head goes against the directions of the party head, he/she would be violating the spirit of Article 63A.

What is the spirit of this article of the constitution? Clause (1) of the Article 63A states that, “If a member of a Parliamentary Party…joins another Parliamentary Party…he may be declared in writing by the Party Head to have defected from the political party, and the Head of the Parliamentary Party may forward a copy of the declaration to the Presiding Officer”. This clause holds the Party Head supreme in the matter of determining and reporting a defection. The Head of the Parliamentary Party is not authorised to declare defection(s).As a representative of theParty Head, the head of parliamentary party is held subordinate to the Party Head and may just ‘forward’ the declaration to the presiding officer i.e. speaker.

Finally, who determines loyalty of the party members? The central executive committee of the party, headed by the party head,decides the party loyalty of a member of parliament (including the head of the parliamentary party).As laid down in Article 63-A, the party head declares defection(s) in writing. In addition to it, ‘party unity’necessitates a single hierarchy in the party. To nominate its candidate for president of the United States, Whig Party held a national convention at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania in 1839. Many members of the Whig Party expected that Henry Clay, of Kentucky, would be nominated as the party’s candidate.When a nomination defeat was imminent, Henry Clay said, “If my name creates any obstacle to union and harmony, away with it, and concentrate upon some individual more acceptable”.

If the parliamentary party or its headis allowed torevolt against the party or the party head, party unity or party harmony is clearly compromised. In order to preserve the rights of the parties and the party heads, the constitution does not permit this. If the parliamentary party head himself or herself defects, the party head can take action against him or her.If assembly members of party A, who were elected members of the assembly on party tickets issued to them with the consent of the party head, cast their votes in electing the PM, CM, speaker and deputy speaker against the direction of the Party Head and became defectors, why can’t members of the same assembly belonging to Party B become defectors by treadingthe same course?

In addition, how can a party that has representation in all assemblies—national and provincial—and has parliamentary heads in all of them, assure party discipline if the parliamentary heads become autonomous in directing the party members in the assemblies regarding elections of the chief executives? The prerogative of party discipline clearly belongs to the party head. As far as the question of party head’s becoming a dictator is concerned, firstly, it is not relevant in case party politics and elections are being held as per constitutional requirements. Secondly, even if a party head becomes a dictator, various political mechanisms are available to address the issue.

It is least advisable that the Judiciary or bureaucracy single out a party and interfere in its internal matters to thwart the so-called ‘dictatorial’ inclination of its head. One of the mechanisms to deal with a dictatorial head is already in practicein this country, i.e. factionalism. However, until a party has split and the newly emergent faction has registered with the Election Commission of Pakistan, the parent party will be considered a single party led by the party headwhose name is carried in the ECP record.

A‘dictatorial’ head can also be defeated in intra-party elections, which is anECPrequirement. But, until and unless the partyre-elects its head and the record is updated in the ECP and other relevant offices accordingly, the party head’s rights are maintainable in accordance with relevant laws.Resultantly, his direction is binding for the parliamentary party in case of an electoral process for electing a PM, a CM, a speaker or a deputy speaker.

Dr Azam has a PhD in politics and international relations and is currently an assistant professor in the Department of Politics and International Relations at the University of Sargodha.

Dr Zahoorhas a PhD in   history and is the head of History Department at the University of Sargodha.