- Consultations are compulsory under the constitution
AT PENPOINT
Prime Minister Imran Khan should realise that by having opted to work within the present system, he committed himself to obeying the Constitution, which requires the Prime Minister to carry out meaningful consultations with the Leader of the Opposition on a number of occasions. If the Prime Ministers thinks he is squeaky clean, and the Leader of the Opposition a sleazebag, what provision does the Constitution make? The Constitution makes no moral assumptions, only factual. The Leader of the Opposition is a member of the National Assembly, and thus has been elected by a constituency. That is a fact. It is presumed that he meets the qualifications prescribed in Article 62, and avoids the disqualifications prescribed in Article 63 (and failing a court verdict, that presumption holds good). That too is a fact. That he may not be a nice person because of corrupt deeds, or because he bathes infrequently, is irrelevant to the Constitution.
Imran Khan has raised a question that is already answered by the constitutional framework. What if the Prime Minister just doesn’t like the Leader of the Opposition? (Or the Chief of Air Staff, or Auditor General, or any other holder of a constitutional office?) He cannot really do anything about it, because that is what checks and balances are all about. The Prime Minister may be the country’s Chief Executive, and thus very powerful, but he has to deal with the Leader of the Opposition, holding meaningful consultations with him on a number of appointments, such as the Chairman of the National Accountability Bureau, the caretaker Prime Minister. And the members of the Election Commission.
It is understandable that Imran does not want to meet Mian Shehbaz Sharif. After all, he is the sort of ‘corrupt element’ that Imran entered politics to combat. However, unless he takes the plea that he does not recognise the Constitution, he cannot avoid meeting him. That the consultation has to be meaningful has been found by the Supreme Court decades ago. It cannot be perfunctory, carried out during a coincidental meeting, such as while sharing a lift in a hotel, or while crossing each other in an airport lounge. And it cannot be carried out by letter, not if the Leader of the Opposition refuses. It perhaps can be done on the phone, and it certainly need not be recorded. It is supposed to be done in private. And it can involve a corrupt person, or even two corrupt people, provided they haven’t been found out. Declaring anyone corrupt is the prerogative of the judiciary, of which the Prime Minister cannot be a member. He is not supposed to, as he now seems to be doing, second-guess it. Shehbaz is under investigation by NAB, and indeed under arrest. If convicted in that case, he would cease to be an MNA, and thus would cease to hold office as Leader of the Opposition.
However, if it wins using the old system, thus showing itself that it has mastered it, it loses the incentive for change.
But all his acts while holding that office would remain valid even if Imran feels that consultations with a Leader of Opposition later disqualified cast a shadow on the choices made. It also should not be forgotten that the requirement of consultation was made to reduce the Prime Minister’s discretion in appointing persons who would conduct elections he might be contesting.
Imran has got to obey the Constitution because he is a creature of it. For all his promises of tabdeeli, he is no longer in favour of the electoral reform that led him to carry out his famous sit-in in Islamabad. That indicates the kind of satisfaction with election results that a victorious party has. If a party fears future defeat, it always argues for electoral reform to its advantage. However, if it wins using the old system, thus showing itself that it has mastered it, it loses the incentive for change.
In the same way, there is a section of opinion that refuses to operate within the Constitution, that which holds it is against the tenets of Islam. That section of opinion does not even claim that it enjoys the support of the majority of the population. Those religious parties which have accepted the Constitution have not had much electoral success, even if they argue that democracy, which the Constitution enjoins, is merely the Islamic principle of consultation writ large.
Imran does not make the argument against democracy, even though he has spoken about the state of Madina as an ideal. Those arguing against democracy point out that that state were not a democracy. Indeed, the critique of it offered by religious elements acts as justification for military rule.
However, certain things have to be done. They include getting Pakistan out of trouble with the FATF, getting the IMF to give the requisite package, and making the people accept the sacrifices necessary. Imran also has to make the right foreign-policy moves, and stopping an Indo-Pak war is something that was needed.
Imran not just chose to work within the system, but also opted to work within a subsystem. What he or his advisers need to realise is that the system requires him to do business with the Opposition.
Not just the Leaders, but the whole of it, as in the briefing on NAP. Imran initially held the Interior portfolio, so the whole boring business of briefing Parliament falls to him, not the Foreign Minister.
He has even interacted with foreign leaders accused of heinous offences. The logical corollary of refusing to deal with Mian Shehbaz is that Imran should have refused to host Saudi Crown Prince Muhammad bin Salman until he cleared himself of the murder charges against him, joining the journalists who mentioned this charge on the social media, instead of setting the FIA on them. Just as he has to deal with any person a foreign country sends, he has to deal with whoever the opposition chooses. To quote The Godfather (now a CJP-sanctioned practice): “It’s not personal; it’s strictly business.”
