It is forParliament to formulate a constitution for the country and to enact legislation as per the requirements. However, in case of emergency, when it is not possible to convene a session of Parliament, the government may legislate through a presidential decree for a period specified in the Constitution. But the presidential ordinance has to be introduced in Parliament and then it is the prerogative of the people’s representatives to approve the presidential decree.
It can be approved or rejected, and conditions are favourable at the moment, and with a democratic government and a functioning parliament, the massive use of unwarranted presidential decrees for legislation is by no means satisfactory in terms of democratic principles. Similarly, a new presidential ordinance amended the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, which was originally enacted by the PML(N) government in 2016. This amendment in the law was superficially menacing the freedom of expression.
If the opposition wants to restore its credibility, it should not just think against the government but make clear practical steps, otherwise the issue will continue as to who will go first? The government must legislate, but democracy should not have dictatorial legislation.
Since the PTI came to power, despite bringing in more than 70 presidential ordinances, the process has not stopped but continues. The Federal Cabinet has approved two more important ordinances, the first ordinance to criminalize hate campaigns on social media and the second to allow MPs to participate in election campaigns. According to Federal InformationMinister Fawad Chaudhry, insulting people on social media has been made a punishable offence. Under the law, courts are required to make a decision within six months.
It is a fact that social media has become a powerful medium, and any news or content that runson it reaches every home in the blink of an eye, electronic and print media outlets are bound by certain rules while on social media, everybody acts as an organization and spreads misinformation without pondering, reputations are destroyed and (in the Urdu phrase) ‘turbans are tossed’ on social media every day and honourable people seem to be saying for decades that what is being said about them is not true, negative propaganda is also being s*read about the military and judiciary but there is a need to ensure transparency with legislation, so as not to create the impression that a particular class is being targeted.
There is no doubt that MPs should not be excluded from the election campaign as well there is a need to prevent false news, but the legislative process is not right for this. What is the fear of the government that it is resorting to a presidential ordinance instead of Parliament? Parliament is the centre of public representation in the country and the government’s own existence is as a result of the same Parliament and public representation. If the government wants to amend the law or enact new laws by deducting the role of Parliament and if such a series of laws take the form of a tradition, then the government will also lose the right to represent the people.
It is a fact that the issuance of presidential ordinances has generally been a manifestation of a dictatorial regime, but the present government has broken all the records of the dictatorial regime by pushing through the ordinance for its own benefits. While the opposition seems to be at first opposition parties, their hypocrisy and finally reconciliation, the opposition has been playing such a double role for the last four years that with the cooperation of the opposition, every law is being passed under one pretext or another. This is the result of collusion between the government and the opposition that every law is being made by the government in a double manner, if one law seems good then the other has to be accepted.
Undoubtedly, the government and the opposition seem to be playing the whole game of confrontation to fool the people. On the one hand, the opposition leadership says that by issuing the ordinance, the President is not fulfilling the requirements for an ordinance under Article 89 nor is he deciding for himself. Parliament will think about how to take action against the President, while on the other hand the government is taking all kinds of steps, while Parliament is apparently limited to thinking only.
If the opposition wants to restore its credibility, it should not just think against the government but make clear practical steps, otherwise the issue will continue as to who will go first? The government must legislate, but democracy should not have dictatorial legislation.
