DEMOCRACY is noisy and may even get messy. Rowdy protests are a common feature of parliamentary proceedings. Legislative history everywhere is replete with instances of fiery, even abusive, exchanges between the opposition and treasury benches.

Occasionally, verbal clashes turn physical. When lawmakers cross acceptable limits, they may be temporarily barred from attending the proceedings. That is what happened in the Punjab Assembly during the recent budget session. Protesting opposition MPAs interrupted Chief Minister Maryam Nawaz — declared as the ruling PML-N’s ‘red line’ — and the Speaker suspended 26 of them for engaging in rowdy conduct and slapped 10 with fines for vandalising assembly property.

The action made headlines, but did not raise alarm. Neither the opposition’s protest nor the Speaker’s response was extraordinary in the context of parliamentary traditions. Regardless of the party in power, Pakistan has often witnessed such incidents since 1988.

However, Speaker Malik Muhammad Ahmad Khan’s decision to approach the ECP seeking disqualification of the suspended PTI legislators is disturbing, and sets a dangerous precedent in our fragmented parliamentary history.

He outlined several violations including disorderly conduct, misbehaviour and disregard for his rulings to build a case for their disqualification. The move is likely to be challenged in court.

Mr Khan’s contention that such misconduct is a crime against democratic norms and a breach of the oath taken by elected politicians to uphold the Constitution cannot withstand legal scrutiny.

The reference will likely be struck down as the Speaker wrongfully seeks to conflate procedural disruptions with breaching the Constitution. Personal opinion on foul language, hooliganism and physical aggression within the assembly is one thing; equating such behaviour with constitutional violation quite another.

No wonder legal experts have termed the move devoid of logic and an extreme measure. In their opinion, the Punjab Assembly Rules permit only temporary suspension of MPAs, and not their disqualification.

According to them, the Speaker is not empowered to recommend disqualification for a member. The PML-N’s allies see the move as an attempt to eliminate dissent in the assembly. The PPP has rightly questioned whether such action would have been taken had the protesters targeted someone other than Ms Nawaz.

It reminded the ruling party of its own combative past when it routinely used incendiary language and theatrics against then prime minister Benazir Bhutto in and out of the assemblies. The Speaker claims that his move was aimed at upholding the Constitution and maintaining the dignity of the parliamentary process. The reality is that he has taken this step only because the offending lawmakers had interrupted Ms Nawaz. As custodian of the House, he must understand that the only red line for a democrat is the Constitution, and certainly not his leader.

Published in Dawn, July 5th, 2025