Senator Farhatullah Babar warned against amending Article 63-A of the Constitution to broaden grounds for disqualification of a member of parliament (MP), adding that parliamentarians should not be disqualified for going against party direction when voting on bills to amend the Constitution.During a discussion in Senate, he said the 18th amendment had already placed enormous powers with party heads to prevent horse trading and defection. “It would be unwise to encourage party dictatorship,” he said. Not towing party lines in parliament during voting on election to the office of prime minster and chief ministers, confidence and no-confidence motions, money bills, and constitutional amendment bills already constitute grounds on which a parliamentarian can be disqualified, said Babar. He urged removal of ‘constitutional amendment bill’ from the aforementioned list, as he called for a constitutional amendment to ensure transparent Senate elections. Quoting from the minority judgment of the Supreme Court in the recent case that challenged the 18th amendment, he said members of parliament had taken oaths to protect and defend the Constitution. Therefore, he argued, voting on a constitutional amendment bill must be motivated by a member’s conscience rather than his party’s direction. The question is why the 18th amendment was drafted by Senator Raza Rabbani of the PPP, and then got it passed from the Parliament in the present form? Two clauses in the Eighteenth amendment made top leaders of political parties as virtual dictators. One was the deletion of sub-clause 4 of Article 17, which stated: \”Every political party shall, subject to law, hold intra-party elections to elect its office-bearers and party leaders\”. In fact, this article should have been further strengthened by incorporating the provision that party elections be held under the Election Commission of Pakistan\’s watch to put an end to sham intra-party elections that are held just to comply with the formalities of political parties act. However, the spokespersons of the PML-N and the PPP had defended the deletion on the pretext that the provision of holding elections in the parties was already there in political parties act.
This was an effort to hoodwink the people because there is a marked difference between the requirement in the political parties act and a provision in the constitution adopted by two-third majority of the Parliament. This is the reason that the top leadership has never allowed the second leadership to emerge, and their scions are supposed to take over after the demise of the leader. The second one was an amendment to Article 63-A with regard to disqualification of a member on the grounds of defection, which before amendment read: \”He may be declared in writing by the Head of the Parliamentary Party to have defected from the political party, and the Head of the Parliamentary Party may forward a copy of the declaration to the Presiding Officer, and shall similarly forward a copy thereof to the member concerned”.
The right had been taken away from the parliamentary leader, and in the amended clause party head was given the prerogative in this regard. The problem is that political parties of Pakistan are being run as dynasties or family enterprises. More often than not, different party officials are nominated by the party heads. The self-styled custodians of democracy are in fact authoritarian leaders, who dictate party policies. Anyhow, Bhutto-Zardaris, Sharifs and Chaudhrys’ scions would be the next crop of leaders, and merit would have no place in the party hierarchy. The Supreme Court should take suo motu of this aberration, because it takes away the right of the elected member to say things or vote as dictated by his conscience. Anyhow, the Supreme Court verdict has to be accepted by all and sundry, and if any amendment has to be made, the House should amend the 18th amendment.
pk.shafaqna.com
