With his house of cards collapsing, can PM Imran find respite in a legal loophole? – Pakistan

Last year, the prime minister urged lawmakers to exercise their ‘democratic rights’. Now he wants to make it illegal for them to do so.

Around the same time last year, Prime Minister Imran Khan held a litmus test in Parliament, asking honorary lawmakers to decide whether to remain or resign as Speaker of the House.

In a video clip tweeted by journalist Hamid Mir on March 4, the Prime Minister can be heard telling lawmakers that he will run for confidence. guide them “This is your democratic right,” said the prime minister. “You can say I am not with Imran Khan. I will respect you. [and think] Okay, I’m not competent,” he added.

When the vote took place, 178 lawmakers raised their hands on Prime Minister Imran.

Exactly a year later, it seems that the prime minister no longer trusts the trust of lawmakers in him. In fact, we see a very different Prime Minister after appearing to have lost the referee’s support for the neutral referee’s cry that was once his original rally cry.

The new Imran Khan no longer believes it is the “democratic right” of lawmakers to decide whether or not he is fit to lead them. Now, as defectors from the PTI enjoy the hospitality of the opposition, the prime minister will make anyone who voted against him believe he has sold him. A very colorful language on state television.

Meanwhile, the prime minister is being advised against raids on the capital’s state-owned houses, rule as governor of Sindh and prior disqualification of errant party members, before expressing what his democratic rights were until last year.

So how far can a prime minister legitimately use these strategies to prevent his house from collapsing?

Emergencies and Governor Rules

Our constitution contains a state of emergency clause, and section 232 allows the president to mentally make a state of emergency declaration that requires certain conditions to be met. This provision requires the President to confirm that an emergency exists “where the security of Pakistan or any part of it is threatened by war or external aggression or internal chaos beyond the control of local governments”.

Even if the President himself explains why and how and expresses satisfaction, Arif Alvi assumes that he does not believe that an emergency is necessary because of the threat of war or aggression from outside, and emergencies arising from internal commotion are usually A resolution supported by the city council is required.

If the President, by resolution, decides to act on his own without such approval, then such an internal commotion emergency declaration must be submitted to and approved by both houses within ten days. During this time, the district’s Superior Court will continue to function.

Attempts to explain the need to declare a state of emergency due to ‘internal turmoil’ would certainly be venomous and, according to several statements by relevant ministers on record, they would not survive the first meeting as their real purpose is to deter a vote of no confidence. no see. brush to court. It is perhaps because of this realization that Sheikh Rasheed never saw the light of day as to why she was seeking emergency rule in Sindh. The Prime Minister seems to have decided to take on a different adventure.

Another way that meaningful governor rule could bypass provincial councils is under section 234, where provincial governors can report to the president that provincial rule “cannot be performed according to regulations.” constitutional provisions”.

Like any other emergency allowance, it requires reasoning and will look like a club designed to overthrow the Sindh government, which is heavily disguised as an attempt to preserve the Constitution.

horse trade ordinance

Although not officially communicated by PTI leaders, social media has been circulating talk of a possible presidential ordinance on the practice of “trading horses”.

Although it is difficult to guess what form such an attempt will take, it risks violating fundamental freedoms of expression and association that go beyond the already strict and undemocratic limits established by Article 63-A.

With the morality provisions of Sections 62 and 63, there really isn’t much to add unless the government decides to punish lawmakers based on estimates of their intentions. If this happens, this government could use the same logical tools to classify our judicial system and replace evidence and trial processes with palmistry and astrologers.

Read more: Can I appeal the speaker’s decision?

Added to these issues is by ordinance. This may be the last straw to overturn this undemocratic legislative process.

Ordinances have long been ridiculed as democratically flawed tools for creating parallel legislative processes. This effectively short-circuits the people’s ability to debate and make laws through the fiction of urgent need. At this point, the ordinances that seek to overturn the vote in Congress itself are probably too many for even our hybrid system to digest.

Approaching Supreme Court on 63-A

Among all the violent strategies being thrown out, the most official one is to have the Supreme Court interpret the reasons for disqualification based on Article 63-A defection from North Korea, and the government asks whether such disqualification can be triggered preemptively.

A constitution is usually a skeletal document containing a general outline of the will of the people. There are general laws to add to this live. However, the need for the leadership of our dynasty’s political parties to contain the parliamentarians was so important that this particular provision is detailed in detail.

Instead of removing the ambiguous moral provisions (Articles 62 and 63) from the Constitution, it combined crime, crime and fitness for public service, and was always a weapon waiting to be used. At the time of the 18th Amendment, the political leadership decided to promote Article 63A. Without intra-party democracy, they made it mandatory for party members to show loyalty to the leadership.

Read More: Can Article 63-A Be Triggered Before a Ballot of No Confidence?

However, there were limits to the legislative automation. Even if, as the article explains, it prevents lawmakers from voting against party lines, such as a no-confidence agreement, election of prime ministers, or austerity, you cannot treat them like the wrong drones that are prone to getting shot first. sign of disorder.

Therefore, the party leadership had an inherent process of presenting reasons for the disqualification clause, in which members could only be declared leaving the party only by giving them an opportunity to explain. this will definitely come after defected from North Korea.

Wouldn’t it be more at fault if a defector could present and explain why, as promised in his declaration, the party leader truly felt that the party leader deviated from the party line, and that there was no meaningful discussion within the party until such a change of direction was made? ?

A party member who violates this principle, a party leader who wants to be disqualified? What if a defector member highlighted the recent commotion within the PTI, causing the roles of all party leadership to be realigned without hints of what was once promised intra-party elections? What if a member of parliament said that this democratically flawed process deprived him of the ability to protest through an internal ballot over party policy changes or deviations from the manifesto, resulting in him voting against the leader in the only other forum he had been in? Can you express your lack of confidence?

Analysis: ‘Disqualification Threats’ Can Backfire on PTI

The PTI seeks to broaden our understanding of North Korean defection beyond three constitutional methods, including rejecting party orders not to appear at all on the party’s vote of no confidence. It is citing statements provided to the media as evidence of the future intentions of rebel members of their own party.

This is, in effect, an attempt to downgrade the GNP member of the National Assembly to the status of a sheep under a lonely shepherd. This is the very amount their shepherd has promised to completely remove from parliament and replace with members of the council who are free to exercise democratic rights such as votes on trust in their leaders.

Members of the National Assembly have the duty to be honest, sincere, and do their best by taking an oath. This service is a commitment to the voters of Pakistan in general, and especially of its members.

The Constitution permits expressions of distrust in the leadership of the House of Representatives. Although it separately provides for disqualification under 63A for party members who voted against their leadership, it does not prevent precisely such disqualification from being exercised because they believe such disqualification is necessary to bring down a leader who has lost trust. Member of the House of Representatives despite his party holding a majority.

When it was time for the last Senate election, those who voted for their candidates from parties other than the PTI were called conscientious, and were guided by the same PTI’s inner moral compass who today called their erroneous members prostitutes and prostitutes. Previously, the lawmaker heralded the right to vote according to conscience regardless of political party as a sacred right that should be protected.

We’ve all seen what governments can do in the last few days. You harassed your allies where you had to appease your allies. He responded to opposition among party members with threats and ultimatums. We have also seen that the viable options for the Prime Minister to survive the vote of confidence are dwindling day by day.

Perhaps he is seeing something we cannot perceive. Perhaps there is a trick on his sleeve that we are not aware of. Because Sheikh Rasheed liked to remind us every year just before Eidul Azha during the PPP government Curbani Se Pelei Curbani [sacrifice before a sacrifice].

Can there, then, be sacrifice before sacrifice?