IT goes without saying that changes to the Constitution have a far greater impact on a country’s political development than any other legislative endeavour. Amendments once cleared through wide cross-party support — a feat rare enough given levels of polarisation found in most democracies — develop inertia and breed interests of their own, thus raising the costs associated with subsequent revisions.
One doesn’t have to look too far for an example (or several of them) — the Second Amendment and 295-C, developed in a different era by a different set of political actors, are both more or less no-go areas for this or any future parliament.
It is in this context, one has to analyse the government’s recent last-minute attempts at changing the voting procedure for Senate elections. The proposed amendment seeks to alter article 59(1), 63A, and 226 of the Constitution. Not only will the current system of voting through secret ballots be replaced by an open ballot mechanism, those deviating from party lines will also face disqualification — a condition so far applicable only to no-confidence/house leadership motions and money bills.
In the short run, which is the only run the government and the PTI appear to be concerned about, the move will prevent candidates and parties from ‘buying’ the support of provincial assembly members of other parties. Both the PML-N and the PTI have received credible reports that their own MPAs are planning on revolting in favour of other candidates.
In Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, PTI’s assembly party appears to be divided into several factions; with each faction having a different opinion about Parvez Khattak and his extended network of family and friends — such is the choice that seems to be on offer.
The practice of individuals buying their way into the Senate hardly stands blocked with this proposed change.
In a largely bureaucrat-run Punjab, where the average MPA has little to do other than twiddle his thumbs and rubber-stamp last-minute legislation (also drafted by bureaucrats), the assortment of imported Senate candidates isn’t capturing anyone’s imagination. Ignored in formal decision-making or in the token cabinet positions usually given out, PML-N legislators from south Punjab were rumoured to be making a few voting decisions on their own, with the PPP and the PML-Q’s joint candidates becoming the beneficiaries.
Little surprise then that the two bitterest of rivals, the two parties who’ve been at each other’s throats in a headache-causing, incredibly tiresome drama for the last two years, suddenly see eye-to-eye on this particular amendment. Little surprise because the leadership of both see an opportunity to bludgeon to death any slip-ups or deviation in their best-laid plans for the upper house.
In the long run, which is where changes to ‘rules of the game’ — such as constitutional amendments — cast their longest shadow and have the greatest impact, this particular move may lead to several, fairly predictable outcomes. For starters, it strengthens the positions of party leaders over their own elected backbenchers. Power within the political party, already flowing from patronage-disbursement and cult of personalities painstakingly built around the top leadership, will become more hierarchical and centralised. If it is indeed possible, ideological positions and agendas being introduced by backbenchers will matter even less than they do now. (And as it is, they matter far less then they should).
The second impact this will have is in further reducing the importance and autonomy of the Senate. Following the amendment, party leaders would have full authority in choosing candidates — with whatever internal pressure they choose to feel remaining the only de facto check on their discretionary power. At least in the current, un-amended scenario, the very real, de jure threat of a voting revolt by their own MPAs may force them to reconsider the popularity and appeal of some if not all of their candidate choices within their own parties.
Finally, and with a great deal of irony, the practice of individuals buying their way into the Senate hardly stands blocked with this proposed amendment, as some have tried to argue. In fact, the only set of individuals the aspirants would now have to convince, buy, or cajole into a ticket are the party leaders themselves. The votes would, by their grand designs, simply follow automatically.
In an ideal world, elections to the Senate would happen directly either through a proportional, province or region-based mechanism, or by drawing up single-member constituencies for first-past-the-post-based balloting across the country. This would restore the salience of the Senate in the minds of the electorate, and raise the political stakes for the parties putting up candidates. (And while we’re on the matter of drawing wish lists, in an ideal world, dissent within parties over legislative or political issues would be considered normal, and not grounds for immediate disqualification).
Given the staggered, six-year terms and the separate electoral cycle, the Senate has the capacity of acting as a safeguard against the potential excesses of a majoritarian lower house. More importantly, once parties go through a couple of turns being on either bench in both houses, they’ll start respecting mandates and recognise the value of bipartisan support for legislative endeavours. This is why the system mostly works in the US, and this is exactly what India is currently learning through a proposed amendment to the land acquisition bill.
However, if this amendment goes through, the impact on individual party structures, and the party system in general, will be felt far beyond this one Senate election and the candidates being chosen for it. It will most likely, as mentioned above, centralise more authority in the hands of leaders and their closest associates (or relatives), and push parties further away from that elusive, yet desirable, goal of internal democracy.
The writer teaches political science at LUMS.
Published in Dawn March 2nd , 2015
On a mobile phone? Get the Dawn Mobile App: Apple Store | Google Play
Dear visitor, the comments section is undergoing an overhaul and will return soon.