Foreign Minister Bilawal Bhutto-Zardari claimed that one of his ministers threatened him to accept early elections or impose martial law the night before the National Assembly passed a no-confidence bill for former Prime Minister Imran Khan on Thursday.
“I want to share with this house the night before the no-confidence bill is introduced. [was passed]I have been told that we either accept an early election or impose martial law,” he said, adding that the threat was communicated to him by a government minister through a colleague.
Bilawal went on to say it was a threat to block the no-confidence bill against the former prime minister, which, despite provocations by the PTI, succeeded within the bounds of the law and the Constitution.
He went on to say that one of two things could happen: Imran and PTI adopt the same strategy, fostering political instability and launching irresponsible attacks. Early elections or undemocratic measures are taken without the necessary reforms. .
“We must all work to stop this conspiracy. We must all work together to stop this conspiracy and save our country.”
Bilawal also articulated the party’s policy for the country’s future, declaring “first reforms, then elections.” The minister argued that the party did not believe in political engineering and wanted free and fair elections.
“This has always been our position.”
He said the electoral reform was a two-step process. Here, first, “undemocratic” laws and ordinances passed during the PTI government’s tenure had to be repealed before passing new ones.
“We will have to sit together and brainstorm about the electoral reforms we want to bring. [there is] Civil society, the Free and Fair Election Network (Fafen) and many other communities in which we can participate. […] This is to ensure that what happened in the 2018 general election does not happen again.”
He went on to say that in May 2006 the political parties in the country had reached an agreement on the Charter of Democracy (CoD), a 36-item document signed by the PPP and the PML-N. The foreign minister said there was still work to be done. There should be at least a “minimal code of conduct” if the implementation of CoD and the long way to go before such a document is written a second time.
“There should be a minimum code of conduct for the parties here and those not. It asks the question: What kind of politics do you want to be in?”
He urged all parties to participate on this basic code of conduct, warning that not doing so would result in “blood” elections.
“The polarization seen in Korea […] If all parties do not agree on a basic code of conduct before the next election, the next election will be bloody.”
Bilawal urges the formation of an investigation agency in the National Assembly
During his speech, the foreign minister pointed a gun at the actions of the PTI and called for a parliament to be formed to investigate incidents that occurred after April 3. Against Imran with terms that contradict Article 5.
“The situation in Pakistan is in a state of crisis, there is no doubt about it,” he said, adding that every institution in Pakistan has been controversial due to the whims of the former prime minister.
He argued that instead of facing measures of distrust brought by Imran through democratic means, he relied on violating the Constitution and attacking democracy.
On the night of April 3, on the night of April 9 and 10, and from April 10 to now, all these people have violated the Constitution and have not followed the Constitution. […] How could the NA ignore such an attack?”
He argued that it was the PPP’s position that the NA should establish a high-level parliamentary committee/committee to investigate the events leading to the no-confidence motion and everything that happened thereafter. The minister urged people to take these “attacks” seriously in order to uncover those involved.
“As far as April 3 was concerned, the Supreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional. […] The people of Pakistan expect responsibility.”
Bilawal argued that it was essential to understand the facts of these events in order to strengthen democracy and restore the respect of the House of Representatives.
He argued that the former prime minister considered himself a ‘sacred cow’ because these incidents were ignored and no action was taken. He said, “He wanders around the country, presenting himself as a sanctuary, and doing work that goes against our national interest, our constitution, and our international status.”