- How purity can prove a barrier
AT PENPOINT
It would be Prime Minister Imran Khan’s stubborn resistance against suspected corrupt elements, and his refusal to consult with the Leader of the Opposition in the National Assembly that is preventing the filling of the vacancies arising on the Election Commission of Pakistan, and is thus on the verge of rendering it non-functional. On the other hand, the ECP’s taking up of the PTI foreign funding case raises the prospect that rendering it non-functional is supposed to prevent it from reaching a decision in the case.
Like any politician, Imran Khan has not studied the Constitution like a constitutionalist, but as someone out to get what he can from it, and to suppress anything that does not help him. He showed no hesitation in accepting the executive power that was consequent upon his party’s winning a majority. However, he has tried to avoid the restriction it places, that Cabinet members be responsible to Parliament, by appointing as advisers and special assistants, with Cabinet status, people without seats in Parliament.
One reason that Imran cannot afford to associate with Shehbaz is because of his base. For voters who picked him to end corruption, meeting Shehbaz would amount to fraternising with the enemy. That is the same logic as his attempts to make it seem that his elder brother, Nawaz, whom he has portrayed as the source of corruption, is faking his illness
Another area Imran has shown discomfort with the Constitution is with the legislative procedure. Though he won in one House, he lacked a majority in the second, and thus could not legislate in it. His government resorted to the dubious method of legislating by ordinance. It is not a dubious method as such, but when an expired ordinance (which can only be valid for 120 days) is re-promulgated, the Constitution is being bypassed. One reason for the haste was to pass a law mandating C-Class jail for all NAB prisoners accused of defalcation above a certain amount. This would have ensured that some NAB prisoners, who claimed they were political prisoners, would be refused a better class, even though their cases had not yet gone to trial, let alone them being convicted.
The ECP’s decision to take up the PTI foreign funding case is painful for the government on two counts. First, as PM’s Information Adviser Firdous Ashiq Awan has said, the ECP has not taken up the cases of PTI complaints about the funding of the opposition parties. Second, the PTI counts overseas Pakistanis as an important support base. It is perhaps a coincidence that the BJP in India and the Likud in Israel claim support among their respective diasporas overseas. Just like Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Imran too has extensive experience overseas. Individuals and companies owned by individuals of Pakistani origin have donated, it appears, and they can, even though they cannot hold elective (or any other) office even if they have dual citizenship. Also, the PTI is accused of something it says it is allergic to– corruption.
The ire against the CEC is because he has let it be known that he is determined to decide the case before he retires. As the case is five years old, his handing it over to a successor would be a slur on him. It is also puzzling that the PTI wants to keep it quiet. If the PTI is innocent, it should welcome the opportunity to prove its innocence, but it has so far tried to delay the case’s decision.
Now, it may well be making the ECP become non-functional by virtue of its not having enough members. If the CEC does retire on December 5 on the expiry of his three-year tenure, he will leave the ECP with only two members, unless he is replaced. It would have been thought that the Government would have begun the process of finding a replacement, and it has, but it seems that if Imran, as seems likely, once again refuses to consult Mian Shehbaz Sharif because he is a corrupt person, there will be no replacement. In that event, the ECP will not be able to do anything.
Past experience has not exactly helped. To fill the vacancies, Imran wrote Shehbaz a letter, instead of having the consultation in a meeting. Mian Shehbaz wrote back that this was not proper procedure.
It is not that it will not be able to decide the foreign funding case. It will also not be able to hold by-elections. More importantly, it will not be able to hold a snap election. If the dissolution is premature, the Chief Election Commissioner issues an election schedule on the date which has been set. If the Assembly runs to full term, the Chief Election Commissioner issues an election schedule nonetheless, without asking anybody. If the Assembly goes to full term without a CEC, the House will stand dissolved, and the President will pick a caretaker PM (assuming the PM and Leader of the Opposition have not agreed on anyone). That caretaker PM will then advise the appointment of a CEC to conduct the election in time.
What Imran seems to be ignoring is that the Constitution does not have any biases against corruption. A corrupt person would probably not pass the test of being sadiq and amin, which has been prescribed as essential for membership of any assembly. Further, anyone convicted of corruption, an offence of moral turpitude, would also be banned for a further five years. That puts the corrupt in the same category as liars, murderers and robbers. If a person becomes Leader of the Opposition, he has been elected, and has convinced the returning officer of his constituency that he is not a convict and that he is sadiq and amin. However, if some such person becomes Leader of the Opposition, it is for the courts to find that he is not fit to continue, and not for other people to decide that he is not only to be socially boycotted, but not even to be duly consulted.
One reason that Imran cannot afford to associate with Shehbaz is because of his base. For voters who picked him to end corruption, meeting Shehbaz would amount to fraternising with the enemy. That is the same logic as his attempts to make it seem that his elder brother, Nawaz, whom he has portrayed as the source of corruption, is faking his illness. If he is genuinely ill, too questions arise.
Imran’s attitude towards the ECP can be compared to what US President Donald Trump is accused of in the ongoing Ukraine enquiry: misusing his office for personal ends. However, if Imran lets the ECP become non-functional, he would drag down the entire fabric of the Constitution, while Trump is only supposed to have harmed US foreign policy.
A lingering question remains from Imran’s attitude: what happens when consultations have to take place on judges’ appointments? The superior courts can only go so long without fresh elevations. Vacancies of chief justice will be filled on the basis of legitimate expectancy, as will elevations to the Supreme Court. But what about vacancies in the high courts? The Prime Minister does not have to consult the Leader of the Opposition on these appointments, but the Parliamentary Committee that passes on the Judicial Commission’s recommendations after vetting, does include opposition members. What if any of them is corrupt, according to the PM? Does that justify his making recommendations as he did in the ECP members’ case? The belief that managing a parliamentary majority somehow means absolute power is not new with Imran, but it seems he too is getting it.
