President Arif Alvi’s decision to announce dates for the Punjab and KP provincial elections is without clarity over what constitutional authority he has to do so. Additionally, bipartisan approach to carrying out his duties as head of state, further discredits him as someone expected to make a fair decision. This has thrown the future of politics in the country into more uncertain territory. That both the offices of the Chief Election Commissioner and Governor Punjab have decided to seek legal guidance to provide clarity over their roles in such circumstances will only exacerbate the situation. It is almost certain therefore that political parties will soon be approaching the higher judiciary to yet again intervene in matters that should be left to Parliament to decide and agree upon. Ceding so much space, by one pillar of democracy to another, muddles the lines necessary to maintain a fair constitutional balance of power.
Both parties central to this battle have selfish reasons to take the positions they are over premature elections. The PML(N) is currently not confident about its popularity in what was once described as its backyard of Punjab. The damage done by taking power and being unable to bring about the promised and expected economic stability has not only given rise to both a top and second-tier leadership crisis. Ironically, perhaps the only consensus within the party at the moment is to avoid going into any early polls at all costs.
On the flip side, the PTI is itching to go into polls to bank on Imran Khan and the party’s perceived record popularity across the country. The PTI is banking on the despondency of its support base after Imran Khan was removed from office prematurely and the abysmal economic performance of the PDM, the collection of parties that orchestrated his ouster.
It should not be forgotten that constitutional deviations have always led in the past to disaster, and to worsening problems instead of solving them. The present crisis, it can be argued, is mainly because the PTI was foisted upon the country because some institutions operated beyond their constitutional mandate. Bringing about stability, economic or political, is typically argued to be the sole responsibility of elected representatives of the people. By that definition, they should then be allowed to work for and be made answerable to the people, not institutions without the mandate to ask questions and do politics behind a comfortable veil of secrecy and separation.
