THE impact of this government on democracy and parliamentary norms are worth exploring given the motion for the vote of no-confidence against Prime Minister Imran Khan filed by the now united opposition in parliament.

First, some historical context. Founded in 1996, the PTI remained a small party with not more than a single seat in parliament until 2011 when all of a sudden a massive jalsa in Lahore brought it several new members from other political parties, as well as newcomers to politics. The PTI boycotted the 2008 elections, and had no presence in the 2008-13 parliament. In the 2013 polls, it won 35 National Assembly seats, but alleged rigging on another 35 in the infamous ‘35 punctures’ allegation; and blocked the capital for months through a sit-in outside parliament, during which the latter’s premises and PTV buildings were also stormed. Arif Alvi, the current president, apologised for the 35 punctures allegation in 2015.

In the 2018 elections, the PTI won 155 seats in the National Assembly, the highest by any party but not enough to form a government on its own. However, with the help of the MQM’s seven MNAs, PML-Q’s five, the newly formed BAP’s five, BNP’s four, the newly formed GDA’s three and AML’s one, it was able to form a coalition government. The PTI had to rely on coalition partners who were also given key ministries in the federal cabinet.

How did the PTI conduct parliament? Leader of the House Prime Minister Imran Khan attended only 11 per cent of Assembly sittings between August 2018 and February 2021, as per the Free and Fair Election Network. The ruling party also consistently tried to delegitimise elected opposition members, many of whom have cases ongoing against them in court, including the opposition leader, by saying they did not deserve to be in parliament.

The PTI has tried to delegitimise the opposition.

This refusal to engage with the opposition damaged parliamentary functioning. Legislative business was also impacted, as the opposition in response also delayed matters in the Senate where they had a majority. Had the PTI established a working relationship with the opposition, which it did manage to do on a few bills related to human rights, then perhaps legislative business and the political discourse would have been different.

However, what we saw was that parliament was reduced to an insignificant body, with over 68 ordinances passed by the PTI government through the president, without much debate in parliament or any input from the relevant stakeholders.

Coalition partners were also unhappy, often complaining that they were not taken on board on several decisions despite being elected representatives. The BNP-M quit the coalition in less than two years, after having been disappointed that the accord signed with the PTI was not respected, especially regarding the non-recovery of missing Baloch, the continuing enforced disappearances, non-implementation of the National Action Plan against terrorism, and unequal sharing of resources with Balochistan.

Recently, the MQM-P and BAP also quit the coalition government, leaving the PTI without a majority in parliament, and rendering defections from within PTI unnecessary for the no-confidence move. Still, it is important to note the large number of disgruntled PTI members. Despite the party’s very public campaign to shame its dissidents as traitors and Imran Khan warning that ‘nobody will marry their children’, one must ask why several PTI members are dissatisfied. Were they significantly engaged with? Were they heard? These are points to reflect on as PTI joins the list of parties that have had their government term disrupted in one way or the other.

Lastly, the PTI’s ties with the military establishment are noteworthy. The pa­­­r­­ty and the military proudly proclaimed being on the ‘same page’ — until last year when the very public saga of the appointment of the next ISI chief exposed turns in that very page, coinciding with the development of a consensus in the opposition alliance, the Pakistani Democratic Movement, and later the filing of a motion of no-confidence against Prime Minister Imran Khan. The PTI is now blaming foreign interference, while the army chief outlined foreign policy objectives publicly, stressing the importance of the relationship with the US, soon after the prime minister proclaimed that foreign policy should be independent and alleged US pressure behind the motion against him.

It should of concern to all Pakistanis that the ‘establishment’, as claimed by the prime minister, provided the latter with three options: resignation, early elections or facing the vote of no-confidence. Is such meddling democratic? Is it constitutional? All political parties must be united in rejecting unconstitutional interference in politics, and assert the importance of parliament in ensuring accountability in our democracy.

The writer is director of Bolo Bhi, an advocacy forum for digital rights.
Twitter:@UsamaKhilji

Published in Dawn, April 3rd, 2022