THE supreme democratic institution is parliament, where the will of the people is manifested through its elected representatives. Whenever that institution is boycotted by a political party, it is not just parliament that is affected, but democracy itself. So the PTI’s decision to end its boycott of parliament is a welcome one. As the second-largest vote-getter in the 2013 general election and the third largest party in parliament, the PTI is an essential part of that institution this democratic term. Inside parliament, the issues and agenda that the PTI would like to pursue can be debated democratically, openly and in line with the Constitution. Outside parliament, the spectre of street power and destabilisation of the democratic project looms. The PTI has wavered in the past about its commitment to strengthening institutions from within the system and has often appeared to have preferred a slash-and-burn approach, but any realisation in a democracy-enhancing, institution-strengthening direction should be welcomed.

Yet, when it comes to parliament, there is a frustrating circularity to events rather than genuine progress. Yesterday should have been a moment for the best of parliament to be on display. Instead, a familiar farce played out. First, Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif demonstrated yet again his dismissive attitude towards parliament by skipping the start of yet another National Assembly session. One may think that, given the PTI’s avowed agenda to discuss the Panama Papers and alleged Sharif family corruption, the prime minister was advised against triggering an unseemly showdown by appearing in the house. However, that is scarcely believable given Mr Sharif’s overall abysmal parliamentary track record. Be it a news conference or a speech in parliament, Mr Sharif appears almost allergic to any forum in which he can be called to account or asked a tough question or two. Speeches before friendly audiences or words spoken at a project inauguration matter little; it is to democratic institutions and norms that the prime minister must show greater respect.

Second, parliament is too often treated as an extension of the media circus that dominates the national conversation for the most part. All sides must bear some of the blame for the unhappy state of affairs. Speaker of the National Assembly Ayaz Sadiq seems to create more controversies than he defuses. The Leader of the Opposition Khurshid Shah seems to believe the occasional fiery speech is his principal parliamentary responsibility. The PTI appears more interested in grandstanding and brinkmanship than genuine parliamentary debate. In the end, the first National Assembly session in recent months to have attracted national interest degenerated into a farcical show with nothing of substance achieved. Today, a second attempt will be made to put matters back on the right track. Perhaps wiser counsel will prevail and the National Assembly will be able to resume its work.

Published in Dawn December 15th, 2016