The defection tamasha in Punjab has reached a climax with the decision of the forward bloc in the PML-Q assembly party to have its leader recognised as the leader of the opposition. —APP/File photo

THE exclusion of several top-ranking leaders from the PPP’s executive committee and the rise of a forward bloc in the PML-Q’s Punjab Assembly party again highlight one of the most peculiar features of Pakistan politics – that dissent is never welcome and defection is never unwelcome.

Many pious men, including some who are known for their learning, have expressed the opinion that the Islamic code permits dissent neither in matters of faith nor in temporal affairs, and that in an Islamic state there can be no opposition party as in Islam there is no concept of a ruling party. However, at the moment we are concerned with the intolerance of dissent among people who do not rely on belief.

Pakistan inherited a strong bias against dissent from the imperialists who established the codes of political conduct in the subcontinent. Since India was not a self-governing state anyone disagreeing with the ‘government established by law’ committed a serious offence. However, the colonial masters did not disapprove of dissent in non-government organisations, such as political parties. Indeed, they encouraged disarray in political parties, especially those agitating for freedom.

The Pakistan establishment has always honoured the colonial legacy by making dissent with government synonymous with treason. In the early years of Pakistan, Raj Kumar Chakravarty moved an innocuous resolution in the constituent assembly which said: ‘This assembly is of the opinion that a circular be issued by government for the information of the public and officials stating that criticism of any ministry or government will not be construed as criticism of the state or an act of disloyalty on the part of a citizen’. The government, through the Muslim League parliamentary party, opposed this resolution. From then on, criticism of the government was construed as disloyalty to the state. But the Pakistan elite has done more than the colonial power; it has suppressed dissent in political parties too.

The latter activity has been facilitated by a number of factors. Not all political parties believe in having a proper constitution. Even those that possess such documents do not consider themselves bound by them. The power to suspend or expel a member from the party is allowed to functionaries at different levels. There have been instances of a party’s central leader’s suspension from membership by provincial or district party bosses. Quite often the victims have been guilty of only raising their voice in the party supremo’s presence or hurting his ego. Many politicians have been made to pay for merely expressing their independence of mind on a particular issue without causing any harm to the party.

According to media reports, several PPP stalwarts, such as Aitzaz Ahsan, Sherry Rehman, Raza Rabbani and Safdar Abbasi, have been sidelined. While Aitzaz Ahsan is alleged to have been suspended from the central executive the status of the others is not known. Nor are the charges against any one of them known.

The matter is one of public interest because the PPP is in power and it is not suspected of harbouring a surfeit of political talent. By sending some of its most experienced leaders into the wilderness the PPP is cutting down the talent pool it needs to run the country’s affairs. Further, it is safe to assume that the party leadership will be as intolerant of independent minds in its government team as it has been with party cadres. Enforced uniformism in political parties is contrary to the public interest.

On the other hand, the defection tamasha in Punjab has reached a climax with the decision of the forward bloc in the PML-Q assembly party to have its leader recognised as the leader of the opposition. First, the PPP fished for defectors and now the PML-N is gloating over its success in collecting more than half of the Q assembly party members under its wing. The affair has drawn attention to flaws in the constitutional provision designed to check defection.

The defection clause (Article 63-A) was first added to the constitution in 1997 by the Nawaz Sharif government (the 14th Amendment). Under this provision, defection was defined as: i) breach of party discipline, that is, violation of the party constitution, code of conduct and declared policies; ii) voting in violation of the parliamentary party’s whip; and iii) abstaining from voting on a bill against party policy.

All actions against a member were to be taken by the head of the political party (and not the leader of the parliamentary party). He or his delegate was to issue the legislator concerned a show cause notice. Then he was to refer the respondent’s reply to a disciplinary committee of the party. The member could appeal against the committee’s decision to the head of the party and the latter’s decision as to whether the member had been guilty of defection was to be final. Courts were barred from interfering.

This provision was criticised for consolidating the dictatorship of the party leader, for defining defection in extraordinarily broad terms and for overlooking the possibility of a revolt by a sizeable group against a parliamentary party’s violation of its objectives/policy. Gen Musharraf rewrote Article 63-A vide the LFO of August 2002 (validated by the 17th Amendment). In the provision that exists now the authority to decide defection cases has been entrusted to the leader of the parliamentary party, there is no reference to any disciplinary committee and the Supreme Court can hear appeals from a decision of the Election Commission on a parliamentarian’s loss of seat. Besides, the act of defection has been defined less broadly than before. Now it means i) resigning from a political party or joining another parliamentary party; and ii) voting or abstaining from voting against the parliamentary party’s whip in relation to the election of the prime minister or the chief minister, or a vote of confidence/no-confidence or a money bill. This provision too is silent on defection by a sizable faction of the parliamentary party.

Pakistani politicians who wish to defend the right to break away from a parliamentary party that has gone astray generally seek easement through a provision like the one added to the Indian constitution in 1985. This provision distinguishes a split in a political party from defection. If at least one-third of the members break away from an assembly party they can’t lose their seats on the ground of defection.

The breakaway faction will not get much help from seizing the office of the leader of the opposition. They can escape paying for defection only if they can grab the leadership of the PML-Q. In that case the defectors will keep their seats by ensuring that no whip is issued to force them to vote in a particular way.

The fact, however, is that defection is no longer frowned upon in Pakistan. Gen Musharraf instigated defections from the PPP in 2002 and now the Punjab parties have given a demonstration of their skills in circumventing the defection clause. If our political parties continue to discourage dissent and encourage defection the expiry of the democratic experiment should not surprise anyone.