LAW Minister Farogh Naseem has defended the frequent use of presidential ordinances in parliament, saying it is something that is not illegal. Speaking in the Senate, the law minister lamented the opposition’s non-cooperation over legislation, and said that even legislation dealing with issues of national interest had to be taken to a joint session of parliament. His line of argument is unfortunate. Justifying the excessive use of ordinances for legislation does not reflect well on the government. It points to a certain parliamentary insecurity that suggests that the government does not want to put in the effort to muster support for its legislation by engaging the opposition and trying to persuade it on the merits of the bill, or to garner sufficient traction on the floor of the house through an informed debate. Issuing an ordinance bypasses these processes and also dilutes the efficacy of parliament. As it is, the performance of this parliament has left a lot to be desired. Since its first day it has been plagued with conflict. On the floor of both the National Assembly and the Senate, legislation has been subsumed under a deluge of political noise. Prime Minister Imran Khan — despite having committed himself to regular attendance and participation in question hour — has opted to remain absent, thereby signalling a de-prioritisation of parliament as a whole. This has taken a toll on the performance of parliament. Political discourse has now shifted away from this central platform to more visible avenues such as rallies, press conferences and television talk shows. The parliamentary committees may have fared slightly better, but not by much. Here too the serious work of discussing, debating and drafting bills has often fallen victim to partisan politicking. The result has been a dilution of legislation.

After the Senate elections in March, it is expected the government will have a majority in both houses, which means it will be in a comfortable position to get its laws passed and would have no need to resort to ordinances, which must in any case be strongly discouraged. But even if its numbers increase in parliament, the government would be well advised to review the principles of democracy which rest not only on majority consensus but also on genuine debate and engagement with those who have a different viewpoint. It is only by reaching out across the aisle that the government can gain deeper knowledge of how a particular law would benefit the electorate.

Published in Dawn, January 13th, 2021

Opinion

Farewell Roosevelt Hotel
21 Jan 2021

Farewell Roosevelt Hotel

It is worth noting that massive plans have been upended and assets are now on the verge of being seized.
A horned dilemma
21 Jan 2021

A horned dilemma

Trump would rather ‘reign in Hell, than serve in Heav’n’.
Violence & Afghan peace talks
Updated 20 Jan 2021

Violence & Afghan peace talks

Many of those killed in recent weeks have actively been campaigning against rampant violence and rising human rights violations

Editorial

Updated 21 Jan 2021

Agosta kickbacks trial

A POLITICALLY significant trial opened in Paris yesterday. Former French prime minister Edouard Balladur is in the...
Updated 21 Jan 2021

Indian media scandal

Common sense, factual reporting and ethics are all chucked out the window in the maddening race for ratings, influence and power.
21 Jan 2021

Rising food prices

FOOD inflation continues to challenge the resolve of the government to control the prices of essential kitchen items...
Updated 20 Jan 2021

Broadsheet judgement

There are plenty of skeletons in the Broadsheet cupboard and they must be brought out into the open.
20 Jan 2021

Unequal justice

IT seems no one wants to testify against former SSP Malir, Rao Anwar. At least five prosecution witnesses, all ...
20 Jan 2021

Schools reopening

THE disruptive impact of Covid-19 on education will be felt for years to come. For countries like Pakistan, where...