AT PENPOINT
The PTI got its wish, and managed a dissolution of both provincial assemblies. However, that did not lead to its further wish, that the National Assembly be dissolved, and fresh elections held. Instead, it got the resignations of 113 of its MNAs accepted, in three batches. That torpedoed a move for the PTI to return to the Assemblies, saying that they were withdrawing their resignations, and taking part in the proceedings of the House.
The PTI had won 149 seats in 2018, and Imran Khan had got 176 votes in the election for PM. However, the 139 members of the parliamentary party not just mitted the smaller parties which had allied with the PTI, but also 21 PTI MNAs who did not resign, and have taken their seats in the Assembly with Raja Riaz as their leader, and consequently he is Leader of the Opposition. There were 123 resignations received, of which, after the acceptance of 113, 10 remain unaccepted, and thus the members are liable to return to the House. If the resigning members were allowed back, this would mean that Raja Riaz could no longer remain Leader of the Opposition, or parliamentary party leader.
The demand that the Chairmanship of the Public Accounts Committee also be allocated to it also makes sense. Usually, the Leader of the Opposition is elected Chairman of the Committee of which he is a member. However, when is another matter? It may be remembered that Benazir Bhutto was elected Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee in the 1990-1993 Assembly, but that took place just before the dissolution of the House under Article 58 (2b) by President Ghulam Ishaq Khan in 1993.
The PTI’s reasoning seems a little flawed, being too narrowly focused on the politics of ins and outs. There is a national economic crisis, which is a mixture of a foreign exchange crisis, a bout of inflation and flood damage. Under these circumstances, the dissolution of two assemblies was perhaps too radical a step. Just as the PTI’s dissolution was perhaps not fully thought through, the acceptance of the resignations may have been more of a kneejerk reaction than anything else.
It also illustrated that a Pakistani presiding officer is partisan in the end, more like US presiding officers that the Speaker of the House of Commons, whose neutrality is supposed to be a given. He can afford to be neutral, because all the partisan work is done by the whips. The Speaker has to observe neutrality in the conduct of debates, and by sticking to the rules which ensure the accountability of the Executive, through the various means by which the ministers have to answer for their departments.
That also applies to the Speaker of the US House of Representatives, but the Speakership is now a partisan office, not in the role he or she plays, which continues to be one of neutrality while in the chair, but is considered the leader of the party if it does not occupy the White House. Speaker Kevin McCarthy may not be the leader of the Republican Party because former President Donald Trump is still very powerful, and may run again for President in 2024. However, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was very much the Democrat leader while Trump was President.
The presiding officer of the US Senate does not have this quality, because he is the Vice-President. (The Indian Vice-President also has this job, and presides over the upper house of Indian Parliament, the Rajya Sabha.) The US President and Vice-President belong to the same party, so that solves the problem. The President in Pakistan has the Senate Chairman as a sort of deputy, even though elected by the Senate itself. That provision was probably copied from the American constitution via the Indian.
The main consequence of the resignations being accepted is that Shehbaz Sharif will consult with Raja Riaz when the House heads to dissolution over the caretaker PM. If the PTI manages even a partial return, he will consult Imran or his nominee. If the matter goes to a joint committee, again, the PTI nominees will not be friendly. If the ECP decides, the result of the pressure it exerts over the ECP’s pick for Punjab CM will be crucial.
The neutrality of the Pakistani Speaker is thus subordinated to political goals. The Speakership and the Prime Ministership are linked. Speaker Meraj Khalid was the first to become PM, being appointed caretaker PM in 1993, but one of his successors as Speaker, Yousaf Reza Gilani, became PM. He was succeeded by Raja Pervez Ashraf, who has now become Speaker.
Raja Pervez might look to his namesake Pervez Elahi, who has been Punjab Speaker twice and CM twice. Punjab has got another example in Manzoor Wattoo, who became CM after having served as Speaker. As a matter of fact, Balochistan provides the example of present CM Abdul Quddus Bizenjo, who was Speaker before having taken office as CM last year. He had been briefly CM in 2018. Also from Balochistan are those CMs who have been Deputy Chairman of the Senate, like Humayun Khan Marri (who was a caretaker CM) and Jan Mohammad Jamali.
Are former PMs parked in the Speakership? Or are CM or PM hopefuls given the Speakership as a sort of consolation prize? Only Wattoo seems to have parlayed his Speakership into the Chief Ministership. However, it should not be ignored that Speakers may promote their ambitions even if they had none on taking office. To expect them to remain truly neutral is only possible if, as in the UK, the other parties do not oppose re-elections. The Speakership is not a gift of the majority party, but Speakers are re-elected even if the other party wins.
Also, the Speakership should be the culmination of a political career, with no prospect of any office in the future. (It need not be the Prime Ministership. Hamid Nasir Chattha, Fakhar Imam, Gohar Ayub and Fehmida Mirza have all served as federal ministers after having served as speaker). Instead, it seems to be seen as the equivalent of a senior Cabinet position. There is a difference: it is not a hire-and-fire job. A Cabinet Minister can always be sacked by the PM advising the President to do so, but a Speaker has to be voted out of office. No Speaker has been voted out by the government which elected him.
This is another example of British traditions being abandoned. As a matter of fact, the Speaker’s neutrality is a bit of a myth, which developed in the 19th century. Initially, the Speaker was merely one of the members who spoke the House of Commons’ decisions to the King. That person had to preside over debates to find out what to say. One of the requirements was impartiality in giving members the opportunity to speak. Otherwise, he remained a member of the Cabinet. A memory of that remains in the House Business Committee; the bipartisan body chaired by the Speaker, which settles the agenda of the House for each session. It was only in the 19th century that he moved to a greater neutrality, and truly became what he is today, the custodian of the whole House.
However, now the PTI wishes to attempt a partial return to the House. Members whose resignations have been accepted want the acceptance retracted. Resignation, it seems, is being equated with a walkout, which is a means of protest, but not final. Resignation does not mean finality, for the member may contest the resulting by-election. However, the PTI seems to have learnt the wrong lesson from the 2014 dharna that its MNAs can resign in protest, and come back when they want. As a political tactic, it does not seem to have worked, because the PTI does not seem to have a fallback plan for if the bluff was called, and the resignations accepted.
The main consequence of the resignations being accepted is that Shehbaz Sharif will consult with Raja Riaz when the House heads to dissolution over the caretaker PM. If the PTI manages even a partial return, he will consult Imran or his nominee. If the matter goes to a joint committee, again, the PTI nominees will not be friendly. If the ECP decides, the result of the pressure it exerts over the ECP’s pick for Punjab CM will be crucial.
