Law of floor crossing, forward blocs, boycotts

• And arrests of political leaders

Is it possible? Can the politics in Pakistan take turns and land itself into scenes where it witnesses floor crossing, formation of “forward blocs”, creation of “rebel groups” within political parties to divide their voting strength? It is not farfetched to assume that the future of politics in Pakistan may witness such possibilities and perhaps see much worse. I might like to indulge the audience that with political leaders like Shahbaz Sharif arrested and Ms Mariam out on bail a lot is on the table. The current article will not dwell on the thought if such a scenario is about to take place or to judge its morality, rather it is meant to share if such a scenario may hold a legal bar. It would also be interesting to know if the forward bloc lands itself into legal problems if it decides to revolt within a political group.

After the result of the recently held elections in Pakistan, politics is going to be exciting if not volatile. As per political analysts, the election results in Balochistan Assembly, Punjab Assembly and the National Assembly are poised in such a way that floor crossing, formation of forward blocs, rebel groupings, and similar scenarios are a possibility in the near future. This article discusses how is it legally covered in relevant laws.

Constitution has been amended through Article 63 (A) through the infamous 18^th amendment in 2010, which forbids the following in very clear and straight words. An elected members therefore cannot change his party or cross floor referred as “floor crossing”, willfully. For instance, hypothetically, without bearing prejudice, an elected member if he is from PML-N cannot abstain from a critical meeting, or in a meeting where the vote is being decided to elect a chief minister, or even a prime minister. Likewise, the PML-N member/s cannot vote in any way against the decision of the party head. Party head has to nominate his candidature who will seek votes from his party and, independent members or form an alliance with another political party. Therefore it is a game where the party heads decide. In case such a scenario takes place, the party leader, or head then can file a report to the election commission and straight away the election commission can start its process of delisting the member subject to the fact that the allegation against were proven.

Interestingly, the Indian constitution which is somewhat similar to Pakistan’s in this respect has dealt with the matter far severely, and within the constitutional articles, the Indian laws has in place far greater speed, “ruthlessness” and greater punishment for such offences related to floor crossing, etc, as discussed above. Indian Representative of People Act (ROPA) also disbars such a member from contesting election for nearly five years. But the Indian politics witnesses a lot many forward blocs, and still turmoil in politics, so million dollar question surfaces, how does it then happen in India and can that take place in Pakistan too?

As reiterated above, without being prejudiced to anyone, let us hypothetically assume that PML-N party leader is removed by act of law or God which has occurred (as Mr Shahbaz Sharif has been arrested)

The answer to that lies again the selection of the party head or appointment of the leader in a political party. This has occurred just with the arrest of Mr Shahbaz Sharif in different cases lined up for him. The entire debate revolves around the fact that the political head if replaced or the need to replace him/her comes up then the entire scenario may change. This has not happened in my knowledge or has not been contested in a Supreme Court stage, but does not mean that once such a scenario takes place this cannot be taken up in the Superior Courts.

As reiterated above, without being prejudiced to anyone, let us hypothetically assume that PML-N party leader is removed by act of law or God which has occurred (as Mr Shahbaz Sharif has been arrested). Let us assume he is arrested for some offence or order of the court and the need to replace him comes forth, then the a group of members can form a forward bloc temporarily stating that they are in majority and their appointed person should be made party leader. The fight as to who won, and how did a party election take place can be contested or challenged in a superior court of law later depending upon who is unhappy with the outcome, and till then a stay or injunction may be granted which may make the forward bloc legitimate till the conclusion of the case. The case will be contested on the ground that the election of the party head was not conducted properly, or that the new party head does not command the allegiance, vote of larger group and so on, hence the only forum which may be referred will be again election commission or superior courts. If you refer to my earlier article on election laws, I once again reiterate the point that recent election laws have made the Election Commission supremely powerful. Ms Mariam hypothetically speaking can only run the party if her bail continues and still she may not hold an office in the party so that means if she decides to opt for the streets which she may well decide the entire debate of party defections may be reviewed in superior courts.