‘Change’ was the rallying call heard from all sides in the run up to the 2013 general elections.

But except for the unexpectedly convincing win of the PML-N, the expected rout of the PPP and the rise to power of Imran Khan and his PTI, has anything really changed for the people who elected them?

Indeed, for the people, it has been “more of the same” — or even worse — from the politicians as they have changed their rhetoric for change into a blame game and vendettas.

Though returned with a heavy mandate for the second time, the PML-N has been blaming the PPP, its arch rival, instead of its pro-rich policies, for its inability to honour its election promises of reviving the economy and improving the lot of the poor.

On its part, the PPP has confined itself to mocking the PML-N tall promises and trying to survive on the laurels of leading the transition of power from one civilian government to another for the first time in the country's history.

It is widely recognised that the media played a big role in making that welcome transition possible by using the freedom it gained during the military rule of Gen Pervez Musharraf.

Its damning expose of political and economic corruption in the country, and support for an independent judiciary, brought much awareness to the people.

In his book Polyarchy, the American political scientist Robert A. Dahl notably emphasised for constitutional guarantees to ensure implementation of the right to the freedom of expression.

A reviewer of the book expanded Dahl’s concept to say that “to institutionalise free speech, for example, citizens must possess a legally enforceable claim, an entitlement, a legal right to speak freely on political matters. And it must be an obligation of officials of the state to uphold that claim, if need be by punishing violators.”

Dahal considered this right a key requirement for democracy.

Democracy returned to Pakistan in August 2008 when Gen Musharraf was forced to resign.

It took firmer roots after the May 11 general elections this year with the first ever smooth, democratic transfer of power.

However, the institutions are yet to learn to honour the basic principles of democracy.

It so happened that the Pakistan Institute of Legislative Development and Transparency (Pildat), a non-governmental organization working on political and public research, wrote to the office of former speaker National Assembly Dr Fehmida Mirza in early February this year, seeking the attendance sheet of the lawmakers of the soon to be dissolved National Assembly.

Freedom of Information Ordinance 2002 was invoked to get the information. But the Speaker’s office turned down the request, giving the incredulous reason that attendance record of the MNAs was not “for public consumption”. Pildat went complaining to the federal ombudsman.

Pildat argued before the ombudsman that in India the lawmakers’ attendance record is made public and put on a website and gets update regularly.

People of Pakistan deserved the same right. To refuse the information amounted to denying the people an opportunity to evaluate the performance of the public representatives they chose.

On September 30 the federal ombudsman upheld that argument. It ruled that “the denial of the requested information i.e. the record of attendance of the honourable members of the parliament who are elected representative of the people is not in sync with democratic spirit which must prevail in democratic dispensation.

“In fact the record enabled those who have elected them to evaluate their performance as public representative. Hence, this information is not private or personal in nature, but clearly in public domain.”

Since a new National Assembly had been elected in the meantime, the ombudsman asked the incumbent National Assembly speaker, Ayaz Sadiq, to furnish the information to Pildat and report compliance in 15 days.

Surprisingly, instead of complying with the order, the new Speaker went to the President of Pakistan with the request to quash the ombudsman’s order.

Secretary National Assembly put to the president that the federal ombudsman overstepped his jurisdiction and pre-empted the privilege the Constitution and Rule 283 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business of the National Assembly guarantee to the Speaker.

“Whenever the Speaker decides or gives his ruling on any matter on the floor of the house or in his office on the file, as the case may be, it shall not be called in question, and that shall be final except on a motion for rescinding it,” the secretary submitted reading out the rule to the president.

President Mamnoon Hussain is yet to decide the issue.

An official of the National Assembly secretariat did not think the issue is making the attendance record of the lawmakers public. It is the fear of the secretariat that doing so would open it wide to media scrutiny.

What is there to hide? It is whispered that there had been cases where lawmakers had drawn their attendance allowances even for the days when they were absent from the house.