Imran cries foul

Apparently, a unanimous vote is not good enough

PTI Chief Imran Khan has challenged the 20th Amendment ignoring that it was passed unanimously by lawmakers belonging to no less than nine parliamentary parties, Fata MNAs and over a dozen independent legislators. Imran has declared the Amendment a law manipulated by and beneficial to the PPP and PML(N). According to him, “nobody” would accept the ‘PPP-PML(N) agreement.’ It is interesting that he is simultaneously seeking an alliance with the MQM which is one of the prominent signatories to the Amendment

Imran has made it clear that his opposition to the Amendment would not be passive. After throwing down the gauntlet, the knight errant is looking for a bloody fight. People, he says, are waiting for change through elections. According to him, there would be bloodshed if the elections are rigged. People will forget 1977, he told media reporters. Translated into simple language, if the PTI doesn’t get the upper hand in the elections, it would go for upsetting the apple cart even if it leads to a military takeover as happened in 1977.

The rhetoric is not unexpected. There are powers in this country which do no want to see strong democratic institutions capable of running the system efficiently. Topmost among these are the conventional powerbrokers who feel threatened in the presence of independent institutions. They can better deal with a parliament whose legitimacy remains doubtful than with one accepted widely as genuine. They are still finding it difficult to cope with an independent Supreme Court. That the three amendments in the constitutions have been enacted unanimously sends a highly unwelcome message of the politicians developing the capacity for consensus building.

Militant groups including the Jamaat-ud-Daawa who are ideologically opposed to democracy too would be alarmed at a system that makes the elections both credible and peaceful. They too would oppose the amendment even when they do not take part in elections.

The 20th Amendment is meant to remove the two loopholes in the system that have in the past added weight to the challenges to the credibility of the elections posed by the losing parties a well as by international observers. They have either blamed the caretaker setup created to oversee the elections as partial or have accused the Election Commission of collusion with the party declared winner. The fact that the parliament had little to do with the appointment of the caretaker setup and the president who appointed the new Election Commision could easily nominate cronies made the system prone to manipulation.

The formula proposed in the 20th Amendment removes the paramount role of the ruling party in the appointment of both the Election Commission and the caretaker setup. Appointment of the Chief Election Commissioner and the four provincial members of the EC is now to take place through a consensus between the prime minister and the leader of the opposition. Enjoying a constitutional tenure of five years, the members of the Commission would no more be under the government’s influence. The caretaker setup too would not be pliable as it would be nominated by a parliamentary committee having equal representation from the treasury and opposition benches. In case of disagreement between them, the interim setup would be nominated by the Election Commission.

According to the constitution, law making remains under the exclusive jurisdiction of the parliament. The basic law lays down a procedure for the enactment of constitutional amendments, excluding players outside the parliament from the process. The 20th Amendment therefore has been carried out strictly in accordance with the constitution and cannot be challenged at any forum.

This said, the way democracies function is constantly undergoing improvements. The driving trend is to make democracy more inclusive, consensus based and responsive to citizens. It would have been in sync with the spirit of the times if inputs had also been sought from the parties outside the parliament believing in elections as a vehicle for change, Imran’s PTI being one. Among other things, this would have added to the credibility of the new system aimed at ensuring fair elections.

It is unfortunate that this was not done. However one expects Imran Khan to accept the 20th Amendment with good grace. He can bring further improvements in the system when his party comes to power. Any recourse to violence over an outcome of the elections not unexpected by him would cause social turmoil the country can ill afford. What is more it would provide a handle to the offstage players to overthrow the system and push the country back to dictatorship.

The writer is a former academic and a political analyst.