What to do about them?
Articles 62 and 63 of the constitution cover the eligibility criteria for parliamentarians: lower limit of age, nationality, mental well-being, character and general piety, etc. Their current form is a result of untiring efforts of the best minds of the country coming from two parliaments a decade apart. And there’s a corresponding width in the range of the citizens’ views on the two articles, especially on the ‘moral’ clauses. Some are vociferously for them; others want to get rid of them altogether from the constitution. There are solid arguments to support both positions.
There are three major reasons to continue having these articles. Firstly, if we get rid of them the constitution will jump straight from article 61 to article 64, and that certainly won’t do. Secondly, the better countries have articles that specify eligibility-criteria for law-makers, although they may not be numbered 62 and 63 (the eligibility criteria for public representatives are sufficiently pressing concerns there to presumably earn them a place higher than item numbers 62 and 63). The UK doesn’t even have a written constitution but one can be fairly certain that they would have some court ruling, parliamentary convention or work of authority somewhere that bars certain people from holding or continuing in public office. Thirdly, it is often feared that there will be no legislator left to legislate if the two articles are applied in letter and spirit. If this is true, then considering the performance of the traditional parliamentarians, it might not be such a bad idea to have a completely fresh lot.
Now we come to the cons. There are four main reasons why we should think of getting rid of the articles – three of them worldly, while the fourth one pertains to the Hereafter. Firstly, the articles have started disqualifying the ‘wrong’ persons, not the kinds it was originally meant to. Secondly, they are bad for democracy because when people want to elect somebody, who is the constitution or anybody else to change that! Thirdly, it is unreasonable to expect the leaders to be more moral than the general population. (The opposite view, namely, leaders must not be like the general public but better than it is rightfully not very fashionable these days.) Fourthly, removing the articles is likely to make the public more spiritual and better Muslims since it will be leaving justice to the Almighty in the next world and not look for it vainly in this temporary abode.
From the above, it is obvious that getting rid of the articles altogether is not warranted. Nor is keeping them as they are. So what is to be done? The author agrees with those who believe that the articles need to be kept but with some amendments. However, while most people object to some of the ‘moral’ clauses of the articles, the author feels some other parts to be more problematic.
At least three amendments need to be made: 1) Art. 63(1) (a) demands that one must be of sound mind, or lose eligibility to be a public representative. Relaxation needs to be allowed here since there is more than an insignificant number among the general population with less than sound mental apparatuses (only a small fraction of whom are certified), and they have a right to be represented in parliament on proportional-representation basis. 2) Article 62(a) specifies the minimum age but there appears to be no limit on the maximum age for a parliamentarian, which is absurd. Sixty is perhaps a good number because people usually run out of ideas at that age, even if they had them earlier. It will also help partially solve our unemployment problem. Not to mention the benefit to grandchildren for the lovely company of their charming grandpas. 3) While a legislator being of unsound mind is understandable – and indeed a certain percentage of such legislators is desirable in the interest of representation of the mentally unsound among the general population (point 1 above) – it should be a disqualifiable offence for a legislator to consider all public as completely stupid, and this clause needs to be added to Art. 63. For example, politicians who have been in power for, say, the last 35 years think nothing of announcing to their potential voters that they are about to bring about a revolution by taking on the retrogressive forces of the status quo. Or of reciting Faiz or Ghalib to provoke the public against the opposition. These, and other crimes of the sort must be punishable by disqualification for life, and Art. 63 needs to be amended accordingly.
