I WOULD like to draw the attention of the superior judiciary and parliament towards the new rules set out in the many constitutional amendments recently made.

A parliamentarian cannot vote against the policy of his party. This is a very dangerous trend and goes against the very essence of the spirit of democracy. A parliamentarian is elected by the people to represent them in the parliament.

They are not elected to blindly follow the views only of the party leader. If such was the case then what is the difference between democracy and martial law.

One can argue that the amendment was made to stop and prevent ‘lotacracy’. However, this is not the case. This amendment serves as a gag clause whereby parliamentarians are puppets and their party leaders their puppeteers. In the present election for prime minister, the parliamentarians were forced by their party policy to vote against their own and their people’s wishes.

How can this be called democracy?

This can only take place in a sham democracy. The same principle of one-man show still applies. Is there someone bold enough to move the Supreme Court in this regard?

DR NABEEL MANZAR Karachi