Unanimously
It has been a while since Ishaq Dar received across-the-board acceptance for his remarks in the House. If anything PML-N’s ‘believers’, in the absence of some serious name-clearing by the ruling party, have been shrinking in parliament. That is why the 22nd amendment was, indeed, landmark. And that is also why nobody disagreed with the finance minister. This was one of those rare occasions where all parties were in agreement. Usually it takes monumental tragedies to end the continuous finger-pointing and get parliamentarians to do something constructive. But now that they have exhibited a shared willingness to sort out the election business, hopefully more quantifiable progress will be made.
The Amendment should also serve as a wake up call for go-it-alone parties bent upon doing the House’s business on the streets. Had all parties put their heads together earlier, this parliamentary novelty would have materialised much earlier; and everybody would have been spared the agony of unsuccessful and misdirected street politics. Nobody needs reminding that a shipshape election commission is central to an undisputed election result. We need not see farther than India to see how an empowered commission can overcome logistical complexities, even nightmares.
Yet pleasant and appreciated as the Amendment is, it does not fail to raise a few important questions; the credentials of the members, for example. Previously the constitution allowed only former judges of the Supreme Court or High Court to become members. The Amendment makes way for retired judges, or on-duty ones, even former bureaucrats and technocrats. But why draw the line there? Why not allow senior, respected members of society membership when their credentials are clean? Also, has anybody proposed a mechanism to check whether members are able to make concessions, when needed, for their institutions, etc? Therefore, while senior ministers are justified in giving themselves a pat on the back, they must still be mindful of potential loopholes that can lead to unpleasant bottlenecks later.
Very much undemocratic. Why not allow me to call a spade a spade ? Do you support use of Thappa and rigging the elections ? Why everyone agrees that the 1970 elections were the 'fairest' in the history of the country – because the Third Umpire had conducted them. Using discretion is your right but be neutral.
Comments are closed.