The Opposition walkout genuine and just
Dramatic walkouts (often for the wrong reasons) and occasionally actions even more flamboyant are considered a normal mode of protest by elected representatives who feel that their voice is not being heard and their grievances not being allowed to be aired properly within the parliament. This may be particularly true in our environment where for instance the presiding officer, the speaker, can be very much a partisan party man. In the mother of all parliaments, this official ceases all political affiliation after his election in order to demonstrate his future neutrality, and in fact the speakership is considered a ‘political death’ in the United Kingdom. So everyone is given a chance to have his say, even the farthest backbencher.
But it was not due to any oversight on the part of the cool and unassuming Sardar Ayaz Sadiq that the newly elected National Assembly in its ongoing session witnessed the first unified walkout by all the major opposition political parties, including the PPP, the PTI and the MQM. For a change, the action was taken for a genuine reason and a just cause. The opposition members were anxious to be briefed by the prime minister’s advisor on foreign affairs Sartaj Aziz on a host of issues, of national and security import, before the session is prorogued on Friday. But in a continuation of the casual pattern of the past, the ministers who spoke in his stead could not give the requisite assurance that the said advisor would actually appear in the house prior to Friday. They by themselves only trotted out the previously stated government statements on issues such as the Doha talks, the volatile LoC situation, the renamed Cabinet Committee on National Security and the dangerous emerging situation in Syria. The minister of state for Defence and the minister of state for Privatisation who spoke on these matters naturally could not satisfy the questioners to their satisfaction. The opposition rightly blamed the government for its non-serious attitude in the matter.
The root of the problem actually lies in the person of the prime minister, who insists on retaining the defence and foreign affairs portfolios with himself for reasons best known only to him. One would have thought that his workload as the chief executive would be more than sufficient to keep him fully occupied and slaving away 24 hours a day. And yet he still needed these two extra offices of the greatest importance and specialisation, with the latter office specially requiring a lifetime of diplomatic experience and skill. Unfortunately the prime minister rarely makes it to the august house while the advisor on foreign affairs never does. The desired lessons should be drawn from this affair. First, in a world of fast moving events, specialised persons need to be at the helm of crucial ministries and there can be no offices more so than those of defence and foreign affairs. The PM would not be doing a disservice to himself or the country if he were to divest himself of this excess baggage. Second, the ministers must make it a point to be present daily in the National Assembly during a session to answer queries and to expound on government policy. All the political action should take place in parliament, rather than before television cameras.
